Sitting of 7 November 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LOCHABER WATER POWER ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Lochaber Water Power: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 3].

HMS Conqueror (Log Book)
2.35 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Defence what has happened to the log book of HMS Conqueror.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Heseltine): During the Falklands campaign, HMS Conqueror kept an account containing detailed operational information which was used to compile the submarine's formal report of proceedings. This is a classified document and is in the possession of the Ministry of Defence.
The submarine's navigating officer also kept a "control room log" which records the latitude and longitude, distance run, course, speed and depth of the submarine at hourly intervals together with other routine readings. This document contains no tactical information. It has been mislaid and as it, too, is classified, a board of inquiry' is being held.
Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for answering the question. His astonishing admission that he, his Department and the Navy, apparently, have lost—some unkind souls might say conveniently lost — the navigation log book not of some cross-channel ferry but of HMS Conqueror, is another extraordinary episode in the Government's pathetic attempts to explain away all the circumstances surrounding the sinking of the General Belgrano.
Will the Secretary of State agree that there are only two explanations of what has happened to the log book? The first is that it has been lost through gross incompetence on the part of the Navy, but very few people believe that the Navy loses log books of that kind. The second is that it has been stolen — and may have been destroyed — by someone who thinks that details contained in the log book are embarrassing not only to Her Majesty's Government but to the Prime Minister personally.
Is it not a fact that this highly classified document would contain all the details of the movements not only of Conqueror but possibly of the Belgrano as well, on 30 April, when the rules of engagement were changed; on 1 May, when, we are now told—although we were not told originally—Conqueror spotted the Belgrano; and on 2 May, when the Belgrano was sunk. Would not the log book — the Secretary of State tries to downgrade its importance — have contained all the details of the movements of those two ships, certainly for those three days?
Will the Secretary of State and the Government at last come clean, treat this House with some respect, and give us a full clear, honest and truthful account of all the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the sinking of the Belgrano?
Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Member will realise that, once an inquiry is set up within the Ministry of Defence, it is incumbent on us to find out what the inquiry reveals before reaching judgments about it in advance.
The right hon. Member makes a more serious allegation in which he invites me to come clean about the sinking of the Belgrano. Unhesitatingly I do it. The decision was taken in order to protect British lives. [Interruption.] The House and the country are sick and tired of the way—

107
[Interruption.]—that Opposition Members, for narrow and inexplicable reasons, pursue a campaign against British national interests.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I agree that the loss of any classified document is a serious matter and worthy of an inquiry, but does not my right hon. Friend agree that the sinking of the Belgrano by HMS Conqueror in effect put the Argentine navy out of the war, and so protected British lives and ensured the success of the Falkland Islands operation?
Mr. Heseltine: There were undoubted consequences, although the House will be aware that we suffered serious losses after the sinking of the Belgrano, particularly the sinking of HMS Sheffield. Therefore, I very much accept the linkage made by my hon. Friend. The important point is that the Government took military advice in connection with the sinking of the Belgrano expeditiously and, in my view, unavoidably. What Opposition Members must ensure that the House understands is that, if they had rejected that military advice, they would have put our lives at risk.
Dr. David Owen: Does the Secretary of State accept that many right hon. and hon. Members have never sought and do not intend to seek to attack the decision taken by the war cabinet on 30 April to sink the aircraft carrier, which was the first and major military decision on the advice of the Chiefs of Staff? Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many of us do not believe that by sinking the Belgrano on 2 May, there was any intention to sink any peace initiative that may or may not have been under way with the Peruvians? What we are not sick and tired of, and what the country will never be sick and tired of, is insisting that the truth be told to the House of Commons. We now find ourselves in a situation in which the Prime Minister, a Secretary of State and several junior Ministers in the Government are on record in Hansard as making statements in the House of Commons that we now know not to be true. We have the right and, indeed, the duty to demand that the Government correct the record of Hansard in any way that they see fit, preferably through a White Paper that can then be debated — and the sooner the better.
Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there are differing views about the sinking of the Belgrano, and I would in no way seek to associate him with the views of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), but he will have heard, as I did, the right hon. Gentleman clearly suggest that the log book to which I referred had been "conveniently" lost. There is only one clear implication in that statement. It was to that statement that I was addressing my reply.
I should like to deal now with what was said by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who, I totally accept, adopts a very different approach to the matter. As the Minister now responsible for advising the Prime Minister on these matters, I have been meticulously through the records, and wherever I felt that it was possible to advise the Prime Minister, having regard to all national interests, that the record could be changed, it has been
108
changed to correct it. The Prime Minister, in letters that are well known, well documented and well publicised, has always accepted the advice that she has been given that, if inaccuracies have been found, they should be put right. She has been meticulous in adjusting the record immediately to come to the facts of the matter.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is it not a sign of the death wish in the Labour party that Labour Members should be so anxious to exculpate Argentina, the aggressor against our British fellow subjects in the Falkland Islands, and to damage the reputation of the Royal Navy and the British nation, which unitedly repelled that aggression from those British islands?
Mr. Heseltine: I totally accept my hon. Friend's views. It is extraordinary that so many Members of the House are apparently more interested in the views provided for them by Argentine sources than those provided by their own Government. But when my hon. Friend refers to a death wish on the part of the Opposition, I find one curious contradiction. It is difficult for corpses to die twice.
Mr. George Foulkes: I should like to return to the log, which I understand is the subject of this private notice question — [Interruption.] I shall deal with that later. Is the Secretary of State aware that when I asked the Prime Minister two parliamentary questions on 22 and 29 October this year, she apparently referred to and consulted the log before replying to them? Is the Secretary of State also aware that someone has been called to the board of inquiry from Orkney who has had no connection with the Conqueror for at least a year? Can the Secretary of State tell us exactly when he, or officers of his Department, last saw the log?
Mr. Heseltine: The Prime Minister, in replying to the hon. Gentleman, relied upon general classification rules which would apply to all such log books.
On the second point, I very much doubt whether Ministers have seen the log.
Mr. Foulkes: Or officials of the Department?
Mr. Heseltine: I would have to inquire into that. [Interruption.] I believe—I will verify this—that the log would be in the hands of the Navy and that it would not have come into the hands of officials of my Department. I will check on the situation. As I made plain in my first reply, the log is a routine document such as is carried by all submarines and ships, and I believe that as such it would not normally come to officials in the Ministry of Defence.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise that, as he told the Select Committee in his evidence this morning, there is a vast difference between the navigator's log and the captain's log? Is it not quite extraordinary that Opposition Members seem to pay more attention to information planted or leaked by the Argentines than to our own officials, or our own Royal Navy?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is perfectly right about the fact that Opposition Members seem more inclined to listen to information provided by former enemies of this country than that provided by their own Government.
She is also perfectly right to draw our attention to the distinction between the records that the captain would keep

109
and the record in the log that we are considering, which would not include any tactical information or any references to the position of Argentine ships. The record in the commander's log would be very different, and that document is in the secure keeping of the Ministry of Defence.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Secretary of State aware that, as Argentina had engaged in unprovoked aggression, anything that happened to the Argentine armed forces, including war vessels, was brought on themselves? The course of the Belgrano is totally irrelevant. However, is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that certain questions remain to be answered and that, in those circumstances, the fact that the log is missing is more serious and may have sinister connotations? It is essential that the log should be traced as quickly as possible.
Mr. Heseltine: I very much support what the right hon. Gentleman has said. This is a serious matter, and that is why a board of inquiry is looking into the circumstances surrounding the loss. As soon as I can reach a conclusion which is based on what I am told by the inquiry, I shall be very pleased.
Sir John Farr: In my view, the sinking of the Belgrano was absolutely necessary and HMS Conqueror did a very good job. Nevertheless, the loss of a log book is a serious matter. Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether, with the modern electronic methods of communication with vessels under water anywhere in the world, it would not have been possible to track HMS Conqueror's passage under water at that time? If that is so, would a copy of such a record not be available in the Ministry of Defence?
Mr. Heseltime: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's first point. However, I doubt whether there would be sufficient certainty about electronic communications to enable them to replace the manual log records which we are discussing. To the best of my knowledge, manual methods are indispensable to the keeping of a routine record.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Those of us who have been in war know what happens in war. However, statements were made to this House in good faith and then withdrawn, and that created the impression outside the House that something untoward was happening. The loss of the log book has added to that feeling. Would it not therefore be a good idea to publish a White Paper giving all the facts?
Mr. Heseltine: I have great respect for the role played by the right hon. Gentleman in the investigation of the surroundings of the Falklands war. I take seriously the point that he has made, which has also been made by other hon. Members. However, my conclusion reluctantly has to be that, having meticulously checked the information and in the light of the widest interests of national security, the Government have corrected—wherever possible and appropriate—the record of things said to the House with the best of intentions but without all the information which is often difficult quickly to obtain in wartime. Despite the fact that the record has been corrected and that the Prime Minister has set out the scene in the widest possible context, the same persistent inquiries continue to try and obtain information that the Prime Minister has rightly
110
made it clear no responsible Government would consider publishing. It is in complete contrast with the way in which intelligence sources from Argentina are used by various parties in this country to try to illicit from the Government comments on such matters which could only be against the national interest, and no Government will do that.
Mr. Robert Adley: Unless my constituents are wholly different from those of the other 649 constituencies, they are—
Mr. Nicholas Baker: They are very lucky.
Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend, from whom I have acquired many of them, will confirm that that is not so. My constituents are not only disinterested in the matter, as a matter of current events, but they are appalled to think that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, who are supposed to go under that name, spend their time doing nothing but denigrate the Government of the day who were doing what they were supposed to do, were they not, in pursuing a war started by our enemies? Does my right hon. Friend not believe that the biblical phrase "love thine enemy" has now reached ridiculous proportions in the way in which the Opposition appear to swallow everything in favour of Argentina, and do everything that they can to denigrate Her Majesty's Government and the Royal Navy?
Mr. Heseltine: Many of us have always had the most profound admiration for the judgment of my hon. Friend's constituents for sending him back here with one of the largest Conservative majorities in the country. I share his judgment that the overwhelming majority of people in this country believe that the Prime Minister acted correctly and would have had only one criticism—if she had taken any decision other than the one that she did.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Does the Secretary of State agree that we are not dealing with the Prime Minister's judgment today; we are dealing with the loss of a log book? Does he further agree that, if he were on the Opposition Benches, he would not be describing it as a routine document; he would be lashing the Government of the day for the loss of a valuable document which he has described as classified? First, will he tell us what the classification was, and, secondly, will he confirm that he does not know when it was lost?
Mr. Heseltine: I can confirm that I do not yet have the full facts about the loss of this document. That is one of the matters to which the board of inquiry is appropriately addressing itself. I cannot be expected to define the document in the Ministry of Defence as though I were on the Opposition Benches, particularly as I happen to have the definition of the log books given to me by those people who know what log books are. It seems appropriate that, as Secretary of State for Defence, I should rely upon the Royal Navy rather than Her Majesty's loyal Opposition.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we are talking about the navigator's notebook, which is a jottings pad used by a navigator for fixes and other relevant navigational information? We are not talking about the ship's log. The ship's log of HMS Conqueror has all the information as to what that ship was doing, where it was, where it was going and the exercises or undertakings that it was, on.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is correct. I tried to make that distinction in the reply that I first gave to the House. I have already seen a pro forma copy of one of these documents. Indeed, I have one in front of me. It is a technical record kept by the ship's navigator and duty officers. It gives technical information and it is not a record from the captain or commanding officer dealing with the wider issues. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is it important?"] I am asked whether the document is important. Certainly it is important, and that is why it is classified. It is not important in the context of trying to see the tactical judgment reached by the commanding officer, but it is important to our enemies in trying to see the way in which the Royal Navy disposes of its ships at sea. If the Opposition's suggestion is that the Royal Navy should publish technical details of its military tactics, that would be a major breach of the national interest.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State make it clear that a helmsman's log of this type would be of vital significance in determining the position and manoeuvring characteristics of the ship when going into action? Does he agree that in any inquiry into the sinking of a foreign vessel such a document would be of the utmost importance to the Admiralty and to the Ministry of Defence in examining the conduct of the commander of the vessel? What instructions has the right hon. Gentleman now given to secure all logs of all the vessels in that campaign to ensure that there is no repetition of such vital documents being lost or misplaced?
Mr. Heseltine: The standing orders of the Department would be appropriate to secure the records of the Department. The fact that there has been a breach is a matter of concern and the subject of an inquiry. The hon. Gentleman's first question makes my point for me. A revelation of the way in which our ships negotiate pending an attack would convey nothing to the Admiralty, which would have designed the tactics, but it would tell enemies or potential enemies how we pursue that kind of activity.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a private notice question. We have spent 20 minutes on it. As there is important business before us, I think that we should now move on.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that Select Committees of the House have a right to call for persons and papers appropriate to their inquiries? Will you give the House guidance as to the right of the Executive to withhold papers from Select Committees? On what classification can that be done? On behalf of the House and members of Select Committees, will you make inquiries of the Ministry of Defence as to the terms of reference of its inquiry and when it intends to make available all the papers requested by Select Committees?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the House is well aware of the rules governing Select Committees. If a Select Committee is not satisfied with the information provided or believes that information has been withheld, it is up to the Select Committee to make a report to the House. I have had no such report on this matter.

BILLS PRESENTED
  NEW TOWNS AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS
  Mr. Secretary Jenkin, supported by Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. John Moore, Mr. Ian Gow, and Sir George Young, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to certain matters connected with new towns; to amend paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 31 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 4].
  MINERAL WORKINGS
  Mr. Secretary Jenkin, supported by Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Michael Jopling, Mr. John Moore, and Mr. Neil Macfarlane, presented a Bill to repeal certain provisions of the Mineral Workings Acts 1951 and 1971, to transfer the assets of the Ironstone Restoration Fund to the British Steel Corporation, to make further provision about agricultural ironstone land and forestry on ironstone land, to confer powers in connection with the reclamation, improvement or bringing into use of certain land, and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 2].
  ELECTIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  Mr. Secretary Hurd, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Brittan, Mr. John Biffen, Mr. Peter Rees, the Attorney-General, Dr. Rhodes Boyson, Mr. Nicholas Scott, and Mr. Chris Patten, presented a Bill to make further provision for preventing personation at elections in Northern Ireland: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 1].

  Business of the House
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That—
  (1) Standing Order No. 6 (Arrangement of public business) shall have effect for this Session with the following modifications, namely :—
  In paragraph (3) the word 'twelve' shall be substituted for the word 'ten' in line 16; and in paragraph (6) the word 'nine' shall be substituted for the word 'ten' in line 41;
  (2) Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 18th and 25th January, 1st, 8th, 15th and 22nd February, 19th and 26th April, 3rd, 10th and 17th May and 5th July;
  (3) Private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence over Government business on 30th November, 7th and 14th December, 1st, 8th, 15th, 22nd and 29th March and 7th June and ballots for these Notices shall be hald after Questions on Wednesday 14th November, Wednesday 21st November, Wednesday 28th November, Wednesday 13th February, Wednesday 20th February, Wednesday 27th February, Wednesday 6th March, Wednesday 13th March and Wednesday 22nd May.
  (4) On Monday 17th December, Monday 11th February, Monday 13th May and Monday 1st July, Private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence until Seven o'clock and ballots for these Notices shall be held after Questions on Thursday 29th November, Thursday 24th January, Thursday 25th April and Thursday 13th June;
  (5) No Notice of Motion shall be handed in for any of the days on which Private Members' Notices have precedence under this Order in anticipation of the Ballot for that day.—[Mr. Biffen.]
  2.58 pm
  Mr. David Steel: The motion is slightly unusual. It differs from the usual annual motion setting out the days for private members' business in that it seeks to alter Standing Order No. 6. The alteration will no doubt be welcomed by the whole House as it will increase by one the number of days allocated for private members' business as against Government business in the forthcoming Session.
  My point, however, is this. If an alteration to a Standing Order of the House can so easily be proposed through a routine business motion of this kind, why did not the right hon. Gentleman propose at the same time a further alteration to the same Standing Order in relation to the number of days allocated to the Opposition? I should like an increase in the number. Even if that is not possible, there is a continuing feeling of injustice on the part of alliance Members in that all Opposition days are allocated to the Labour party. The Leader of the House should come to the Dispatch Box and explain why he continues to say that the matter is for the Select Committee on Procedure when the Committee has batted it back to the House.
  It is as easy for the Leader of the House to propose another alteration under Standing Order No. 6 as the one he proposed this afternoon. The Gracious Speech is so thin that there is plenty of opportunity and room for manoeuvre on his part to give us more Opposition days and to ensure that minority parties are justly treated. He has an obligation to explain his position as Leader of the whole House.
  3.1 pm
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The leader of the Liberal party made a wholly untrue statement about the Select Committee on Procedure. It arranged its day of sitting to suit the convenience of the leader of the Liberal party who scarcely ever bothered to turn up, and it never said that the matter was not for it. [Interruption.] His
  114
  Chief Whip asked to meet it on a certain afternoon but did not turn up. The Select Committee on Procedure has not at any stage said that the matter was not for it. It decides its own priorities for discussing business which falls partly within its domain. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) made a wholly untrue statement about the Select Committee, doubtless in the good faith of ignorance, and should withdraw it.
  Too often the Liberal party has abused the House in that it wishes all other hon. Members to organise their affairs to suit it. Despite that, all hon. Members know that the Liberal Benches are empty during debates. Generally, one Liberal Member comes in, speaks and then disappears. [Interruption.] That is the truth of the matter. Therefore, for the right hon. Gentleman to use an occasion when the Government are proposing to increase time for private Members' Bills to air a grievance which is untrue and to make a complaint against the Select Committee on Procedure—of which I am a member—which is also untrue, is deliberately to deceive hon. Members who do not know what is done in that Committee.
  3.3 pm
  Mr. John McWilliam: It ill becomes the leader of the Liberal party to seek to implement his party conference decisions by raising points such as this when they could have been raised by his Chief Whip in the Select Committee. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) put the case clearly. During the last Parliament the Select Committee discussed the matter and decided to reduce the total number of Opposition days, among other matters. The present Select Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) discussed the matter when it was raised by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and decided that, since it had made the change as recently as 1983, it would be inappropriate to consider a further change in Opposition days now. The Select Committee's priority was to consider the proposals for shorter speeches, which we dealt with last week, and for procedure in Standing Committees, with which we are dealing now. I deplore the attempt by the leader of the Liberal party to waste the time of the House with such a narrow party point on such an important day.
  3.4 pm
  Mr. Russell Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I take a point of order, I should tell the House that it would be inappropriate to raise in the Chamber matters from a Select Committee which has not reported.
  Mr. Johnston: It is a fact that Liberals do not often make trouble in the House—[Interruption.] You know that to be a fact, Mr. Speaker. This is one of the few opportunities that we have openly in the House to raise such a matter, and my right hon. Friend raised it in the knowledge that the Select Committee on Procedure had the matter before it, but decided to postpone its discussion until after a long discussion on public Bills procedure.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is just the point that I made a moment ago. We must not discuss in the Chamber matters that are discussed by a Select Committee which has not reported.
  Mr. Johnston: Our point is that we get one Supply day out of 19, and that is—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is as may be, but it is not what the motion is about. The motion is about private Members' Bills, not about Supply days.
  Mr. Johnston: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Is it proper to ask questions about Standing Order No. 6, the amendment of which is dealt with in this motion?
  Mr. Speaker: Yes, provided that it is related to what is on the Order Paper. If the hon. Gentleman can do that, fair enough.
  Mr. Johnston: That is what we are seeking briefly to do, Mr. Speaker. We are seeking to argue to the Leader of the House that he should not concern himself only with a marginal matter—it provides only one more day for private Members' Bills—but that he should give equal attention to the fact that a considerable minority group, the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party, which together obtained only 2 per cent. fewer votes than did the Labour party at the general election, should get more than one day out of 19 in a year.
  3.7 pm
  Dr. David Owen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is appropriate to draw attention to all of Standing Order No. 6, since the Leader of the House has chosen, with the agreement I believe of the entire House, to make an important change and to respect the views of private Members and give greater opportunity for private Members' legislation. It is recognised, especially when there is a large Government majority, that there is greater scope for private Members' time.
  However, the alliance parties wish to bring to the attention of the Leader of the House, the House as a whole and those Members who serve on the Select Committee Procedure—I do not challenge their rights as members of that Committee to determine the order of business which they consider to be important—the fact that there is a strong feeling among a minority in the House that the allocation of Opposition days does not reflect the realities of the political position in the House. I do not even extend it beyond the House to the country as a whole.
  What is even worse is that the 19 Opposition days are allocated to the Liberal party, the SDP and the Scottish National party by the Labour party. The allocation lies completely within the gift of the Labour party. The House should know how the allocation is sometimes exercised. At the time of the Crosby by-election, when it was obvious that all members of the alliance would be fighting during that campaign, half a day was allocated to the alliance — [Interruption.] Conservative Members make my point. Television cameras have not yet come in to record our proceedings, but radio has, and the 26 per cent. of the electorate who voted for alliance candidates can hear what is happening. In the constituencies of many Conservative Members at the general election, the Labour party candidates lost their deposits, and the main challenge to Conservative Members came from SDP and Liberal candidates. The country will recognise that Conservative Members do not want a credible Opposition; they want the Labour party to continue as the only Opposition. The Labour Opposition can be described as "official" until
  116
  hon. Members are blue in the face, but the House needs a credible Opposition, which in their hearts is what I believe Conservative Members wish to have.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not wildly out of order to refer to the matters which the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) is raising on a motion which is in no way concerned with them?
  Mr. Speaker: What I said earlier is correct. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and other hon. Members who wish to participate in this debate must relate their remarks to what is on the Order Paper. We are seeking to amend paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 6, not paragraph (2), which relates to the 19 allotted Opposition days. The right hon. Member for Devonport must therefore advance an argument relating to private Members' time, not to Opposition days.
  Dr. Owen: The Leader of the House has moved that
  "Standing Order No. 6 (Arrangement of public business) shall have effect for this Session with the following modifications".
  Surely we have not reached the stage where we cannot argue that there should be further modifications of Standing Order No. 6. While welcoming the modifications which the Leader of the House has proposed —[Interruption.] I know that it is inconvenient, but this situation will recur. We shall not be silenced because we feel strongly about this—[Interruption.] A Government Whip asks why we do not table an amendment. I think I am right in saying that we are unable to do so. It is extraordinary that the Whips do not even know that we are not able to amend the motion. Had we been able to do so, and had the Leader of the House consulted us, we would then have sought a proper debate. We do not want debates such as we had yesterday and today so that we can make our case. However, you, Mr. Speaker, know better than anyone that this House operates on the basis of a certain understanding in all sections of the House. We feel aggrieved, and beyond the House millions of voters feel aggrieved. That feeling will not go away.
  The Leader of the House has two responsibilities. He is a member of the Cabinet and the Conservative party; but he is also Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman may smile, but he knows well that he must wear these two hats. He must square his loyalty to the Government and the Conservative party with his wider loyalty to this House. I believe that he thinks that the Labour party can create more trouble for him than we can, and therefore believes that it is not worth the aggro further to change this Standing Order because the Labour party has more disruptive power. I am afraid that that may have to be put to the test — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We do not particularly wish to do so, but we are not prepared to—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Dr. Owen: Minorities in this House have rights. They have fought for them and will continue to fight for them. No one is more aware of the rights of minorities than the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), who has protected the rights of minorities. He was on a different point, which was the question—
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to seek to debate on one amendment an amendment on an entirely different subject?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a right to protect minorities as well. The point made by the right hon. Member for Devonport is correct. We are discussing the motion that,
  "Standing Order No. 6 (Arrangement of public business) shall have effect for this Session with the following modifications". As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that there should be other modifications as well.
  Dr. Owen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are the protector of minorities, and we are grateful to you. We do not wish to filibuster on this motion. We wish an explanation from the Leader of the House showing why he has sought to make only this modification. Why he does not think it right to come before the House with a proposal to make modifications to the issue that aggrieves us—that is that there should be an allocation of Opposition days to the Social Democrats, the Liberals, the Scottish nationalists and the Ulster Unionists? It should not be left to the whim of the leader of the Labour party, or Labour party groups, to allocate the days. The Labour party won 28 per cent. of the votes in the last election and, on the basis of an extra 2 per cent., we are not prepared to treat it as if it had a monopoly in the allocation of Opposition days. We shall have to debate that reality.
  Therefore, the Leader of the House, having already listened to this debate not once but twice in this Session, will have to come to the House with concrete proposals. That is what we want. If not, he owes it to the House and the public to explain why he thinks that the Labour party should control the allocation of time. That is not fair, and the Leader of the House knows that it is not fair. It makes the House a laughing stock and it reduces the influence and prestige of the House, and he knows that in his heart of hearts. The only reason why he will not change the system is that he believes that offending the Labour party will cause more difficulty for him. That is an unworthy reason, and I hope that he will give the House other reasons, and then promise that at an early date he will introduce subsequent modifications to Standing Order No. 6 that meet our objections.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must raise a new point of order, as I have already dealt with the previous point of order.
  Mr. Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned about the rights of minorities on Supply days, and about private Members' days. As a Merseyside Labour Member of Parliament, I am sick and tired of coming to debates and—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall stop the hon. Gentleman there. This is not a point of order. I think that he wishes to make a speech.
  Mr. Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a speech. He is at liberty to do so, but he must not abuse the system by seeking to make a speech on a point of order. If he resumes his seat, I shall call him at the appropriate time.
  3.18 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr.
  118
  Owen) has uttered a serious threat—to make life difficult. I am sure that none of us would wish to see the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) or the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) brought in to back up his demand. Equally, I deplore the playboy attitude of the Liberal and Social Democrat alliance, which seeks to bypass the normal procedures of the House. The right hon. Member for Devonport has been in the House longer than I have and he knows full well that a proposal such as his is a matter for the Select Committee on Procedure to investigate. [Interruption.] Those who are interrupting from a sedentary position can speak later if they wish. I did not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that the House would like to hear what I am suggesting.
  I resent the fact that the antics of Members on the Opposition Benches will deprive Back Benchers of the opportunity to speak in the major debate today which has a 10 o'clock limit, just as they did yesterday.
  Here is an opportunity for the matter to be brought to a head and for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to say, as he said before, that this is a matter for the Select Committee on Procedure and that it should be put at the top of the Committee's agenda.
  3.21 pm
  Mr. Allan Roberts: I have listened to the debate and to the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and I am sick and tired of being told that the Social Democrats and the Liberals do not have fair representation in the House. I represent Merseyside and I am secretary of the Merseyside group of 12 Labour Members and I am fed up with coming to debates here and not being called. I then have to return to my constituents on Merseyside and explain that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is automatically called, knows that he will be called and, because he knows that, is reported in the local newspapers.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. What the hon. Gentleman is saying has nothing to do with the motion. If the motion is passed, there will be an extra day on which he may be called.
  Mr. Roberts: I am speaking to the Standing Order because I am answering the points made by the right hon. Member for Devonport. He continues to quote, in justification of his Supply days proposal, that the alliance has 26 per cent. of the votes as opposed to 28 per cent. for the Labour party. He must realise that he got that 26 per cent. of the votes on a first-past-the-post system when people were urged to vote tactically. Hundreds of thousands of people in Britain who are Labour voters voted tactically to get the Tory Government out and many Tory voters voted tactically to get Labour Members out in a first-past-the-post system. That happened when people did not think that their first preference had a chance. Had they thought that those votes would be totalled nationally to justify extra time being given to the alliance as opposed to their first choice, they would not have so voted.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. As has been said, we have an important debate before us and a long list of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) must stick to the point. He is now miles and miles wide of it.
  Mr. Roberts: Will the Leader of the House consider special Supply days for the Merseyside group of Labour Members?
  3.23 pm
  The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): It might be helpful if I were to intervene at this stage before the debate reduces the issue of the environment to the status of an Adjournment debate.
  The motion is narrowly drawn and refers to private Members' time. With all the charity in the world, I cannot regard the great lesser Opposition parties as an adjunct to private Members. It has been suggested that there is something startlingly novel about what is now being proposed. It is perfectly true that it is a deal which accords to private Members rather more days than a strict interpretation of Standing Order No. 6. However, I cannot claim to be a reformer, because exactly the same arrangement was made in 1982–83. On that basis, I most earnestly recommend the motion to the House.
  I appreciate that issues of real moment to the right hon. Members for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) and for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) have been raised. We immediately encounter certain procedural booby traps, as has been pointed out by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), when trying to assess the arguments. I do not think that this is the appropriate moment to deal with the matter, standing as I do in the way of the resumption of the debate on the Queen's Speech, but I have the responsibility of winding up the debate and I shall certainly take account of what has been said this afternoon.
  3.25 pm
  Mr. Alan Williams: We welcome the measure that the Leader of the House has introduced.
  We might be a little more worried about the fact that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) feels aggrieved if the issues about which he feels aggrieved had a modicum of consistency. I cannot recollect any occasion when he expressed anxiety about the way in which Opposition time was allocated when he sat on these Benches, even though it might sometimes have led to a degree of rough justice for his new-found allies, the Liberals.
  I remind the House that when the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues deserted these Benches and scuttled down the Chamber to the Bench that they now occupy they immediately accosted the House and demanded that they should be allowed time on the ground not that they represented a single voter anywhere in the country for their new-found party but that they represented a certain percentage of the membership of the House. They now suddenly represent an even smaller percentage of the membership, so they are trying to change the ground yet again and are arguing that the matter should be judged not by the number of hon. Members in the House but by the votes cast in the country. When the right hon. Gentleman has got his act together, he might be taken seriously.
  3.27 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Well—Mr. Carlile.
  Mr. Carlile: Despite the pain in your voice, Mr. Speaker—I say that with great respect—I am most
  120
  grateful to you for calling me. This debate is important. It is vital that we should be realistic—as I hope hon. Members always try to be—in deciding whether this is the appropriate time to raise this issue. I would argue that it is the appropriate time and it is worth putting the reason why on the record. The Select Committee on Procedure has refused to consider this matter in the near future, so our only opportunity of obtaining urgent consideration for it is on the Floor of the House.
  Standing Order No. 6 is one of the most important Standing Orders, because it sets out the rules by which debates are timetabled. The House is judged in the country not only by the quality of debates and the behaviour of hon. Members but by its conduct and the timetabling of debates. It must therefore be asked whether the House is fair in its attitude towards not only the Government and the Labour party but towards all the other parties in the House, including the Liberal and Social Democratic parties, which between them represent 7·75 million electors and their children—
  Mr. McWilliam rose—
  Mr. Speaker: I heard that, too.
  Mr. McWilliam: On a point of order of substance, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for any hon. Member to claim to represent the electors in another hon. Member's constituency? That is what the hon. and learned Gentleman is doing.
  Mr. Speaker: That is one thing; but it is quite another to claim to represent the votes of children.
  Mr. Carlile: I should like to make a simple but telling point — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is extremely surprising that Conservative Members should be unwilling to take Standing Order No. 6 seriously since it decides the way in which debates should be distributed. Their levity is a disgrace to the House.
  The simple point at issue is that this House is part of the High Court of Parliament. Surely Conservative Members will agree that this High Court of Parliament should act according to the rules of natural justice—[Interruption.] Obviously, some of them do not agree with that, which is most surprising. I believe that this High Court of Parliament should act in accordance with the rules of natural justice that are incumbent on every court and organisation that exercise a similar function. The rules set by Standing Order No. 6 are offensive to the rules of natural justice. How can the House command the nation's respect for its procedures if the procedures are so offensive to the rules of natural justice?
  Mr. Steel: My hon. Friend should remind the House that Standing Order No. 6 was drafted in the last Parliament when the arithmetical balance within the House, let alone outside, was wholly different. Our complaint is that not only did the Select Committee on Procedure in the last Session fail to deal with the matter and reported its refusal to the House, but that the Leader of the House is not willing to amend Standing Order No. 6 on this occasion, as he could, to meet our just demands. The Leader of the House has not taken up the suggestion that he should ask the Select Committee to put the issue at the top of its agenda for this Session. If he agreed to any of those steps, we could move on.
  Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I agree with him. I remind the House of what the Secretary

  121
  of State for the Environment—I am glad to see him in the Chamber — said in Bristol on 5 October. When criticising the Labour party, he said:
  "The real opposition will come increasingly from the alliance parties."
  Of course he is right, and it is high time that our procedures recognised that.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 15.

  Division No. 2]

  [3.30 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Alexander, Richard

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Amess, David

  Garrett, W. E.

  Ancram, Michael

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Anderson, Donald

  Gow, Ian

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Greenway, Harry

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

  Ground, Patrick

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Barron, Kevin

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Best, Keith

  Hannam, John

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Hardy, Peter

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Harris, David

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Harvey, Robert

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Body, Richard

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hayes, J.

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hayward, Robert

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Brinton, Tim

  Heddle, John

  Brown. M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Henderson, Barry

  Browne, John

  Hickmet, Richard

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Budgen, Nick

  Hind, Kenneth

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hirst, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Hooson, Tom

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Hordern, Peter

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Howard, Michael

  Cash, William

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Jessel, Toby

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Conway, Derek

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Cope, John

  Key, Robert

  Couchman, James

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Knowles, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Knox, David

  Dixon, Donald

  Lang, Ian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Durant, Tony

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Eastham, Ken

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

  Lightbown, David

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Lilley, Peter

  Eggar, Tim

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Lord, Michael

  Farr, Sir John

  Loyden, Edward

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Luce, Richard

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  McCrindle, Robert

  Forth, Eric

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Fox, Marcus

  MacGregor, John

  Freeman, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Fry, Peter

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Gale, Roger

  Maclean, David John

  Galley, Roy

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

  122

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Major, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marek, Dr John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Marlow, Antony

  Shersby, Michael

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Silvester, Fred

  Mather, Carol

  Sims, Roger

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & F'bury)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Speed, Keith

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Squire, Robin

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Stern, Michael

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Mudd, David

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Needham, Richard

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Newton, Tony

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Norris, Steven

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Park, George

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Pawsey, James

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Tracey, Richard

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Pike, Peter

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

  Viggers, Peter

  Powley, John

  Waller, Gary

  Price, Sir David

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Wareing, Robert

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Watson, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Watts, John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Weetch, Ken

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Wilkinson, John

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Rost, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Rowe, Andrew

  Woodcock, Michael

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Yeo, Tim

  Ryder, Richard

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Mr. Michael Neubert.

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Cartwright, John

  Wainwright, R.

  Howells, Geraint

  Wilson, Gordon

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Johnston, Russell

  Mr. James Wallace and

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth.

  Penhaligon, David

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That—
  (1) Standing Order No. 6 (Arrangement of public business) shall have effect for this Session with the following modifications, namely:—
  In paragraph (3) the word 'twelve' shall be substituted for the word 'ten' in line 16; and in paragraph (6)the word 'nine' shall be substituted for the word 'ten' in line 41;
  (2) Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 18th and 25th January, 1st, 8th, 15th and 22nd February, 19th and 26th April, 3rd, 10th and 17th May and 5th July;
  (3) Private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence over Government business on 30th November, 7th and 14th December, 1st, 8th, 15th, 22nd and 29th March and 7th June and ballots for these Notices shall be held after Questions on Wednesday 14th November, Wednesday 21st November, Wednesday 28th November, Wednesday 13th February,

  123
  Wednesday 20th February, Wednesday 27th February, Wednesday 6th March, Wednesday 13th March and Wednesday 22nd May.
  (4) On Monday 17th December, Monday 11th February, Monday 13th May and Monday 1st July, Private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence until Seven o'clock
  124
  and ballots for these Notices shall be held after Questions on Thursday 29th November, Thursday 24th January, Thursday 25th April and Thursday 13th June;
  (5) No Notice of Motion shall be handed in for any of the days on which Private Members' Notices have precedence under this Order in anticipation of the Ballot for that day.

Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  [SECOND DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [6 November]
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament —[Sir Paul Bryan.]
  Question again proposed.

  Local Government and Transport
  3.43 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I think that by common consent the most significant measure foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech is the Local Government Bill. The words are:
  "A Bill will be introduced to abolish the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils."
  When our manifesto was published in 1983 with that pledge, some people doubted our commitment. Then they thought that the legislation would not be ready in time. Now some of them think that abolition will not be completed in time. Such people have been proved to be wrong every step of the way. I do not necessarily put Mr. Kenneth Livingstone in quite that category.
  As I think many hon. Members know, Mr. Livingstone has always had parliamentary ambitions. The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) knows it better than most people. Nothing would suit Mr. Livingstone's purpose less than for his own advertising campaign to succeed and for the GLC to survive. Fancy being condemned for life to be the leader of the Labour group on the GLC. That is hardly the sort of future that Chairman Ken sees for himself.
  Let me make it absolutely clear. The Government are totally committed to the abolition of the GLC and the six metropolitan county councils. If Parliament passes the Bill, at midnight on 31 March 1986 those councils will cease to exist and almost all their powers will devolve on the London boroughs and metropolitan district councils. An unnecessary tier of government will have been removed. The tier in the metropolitan counties is responsible for only one quarter of the spending on local services and the tier in London is responsible for barely more than one tenth of the spending on local services. Taking account of services such as health, the police and several others, the figure falls to substantially below 10 per cent. So much for the much-vaunted case of who runs London when the GLC goes.
  The Bill will be published quite soon and will necessarily be detailed. There have been attempts to spread the story that it will be only an enabling Bill, falling far short of its predecessors—the 1963 and 1972 Acts. Quite untrue! The Bill will provide in detail for the transfer of the statutory functions of the GLC and MCCs.
  126
  We have had to draft the Bill with little or no help from most of the local authorities concerned. Of the main metropolitan local authority associations, only the London Boroughs Association has been prepared to take any part in the talks. It is, of course , for local government to decide how to respond to Government policy initiatives. All I would say is that people can hardly grumble if the Bill does not take account of points that they might have made, but have chosen not to.
  Instead of making a constructive input, the GLC—and, to a lesser extent, the MCCs—have taken refuge in what I can only describe as frivolities. Members may be unaware that today is the much trumpeted "day of protest" by Leftwing authorities in an outside London, their intention being to stop abolition and, I believe, Rate-capping with strikes and demos. Fortunately for most people it has turned out much like any other day.
  Here in London, two key unions, the GLC Staff Association and the Fire Brigades Union, decided to take no part in that charade and, indeed, the Staff Association has withdrawn from the "Democracy for London" campaign, believing quite rightly that the "day of protest" will alienate public opinion. In pointless demonstrations like that the people who suffer are the children whose schools are closed, the old folk, the handicapped and those who depend on the services that cease to be provided. Once again, we see Mr. Livingstone failing to get the mass backing that he claims. I am told that at county hall itself more than half the staff are working normally—jolly good for them.
  None of the MCCs has attempted to rival the extravagance of the GLC. Of course, they are only 10 years old. However, they have not seen fit to spend huge sums of ratepayers' money on nonsenses such as the GLC's so-called pink 95th birthday cake. I was told that the GLC expected about 1 million people to visit that extravaganza outside county hall, but I understand that so far attendance has fallen short by some 935,000.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Did my right hon. Friend see in today's edition of the Daily Telegraph a massive double-page advertisement inserted by the GLC, fighting the democratically elected Government? Will he hazard a guess as to how much that cost? Does he agree that it is a complete abuse of the GLC's position as custodian of the ratepayers' money? How soon can he bring an end to such massive abuse?
  Mr. Jenkin: I share my hon. Friend's profound distaste for that style of local authority spending, and I will have something to say about it.
  The success of the GLC's campaign was well measured by the success of their circus-stunt by-elections in September. Unfortunately for the GLC, the tightrope snapped. We were told that voters from every party would come out in huge numbers in order to support the four Labour candidates and the GLC. What happened? Compared with 1981, the total Labour vote fell by 8,000. So dismal was the response in London that the metropolitan counties hurriedly abandoned their plans to follow suit.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jenkin: So much for the £10 million campaign of ratepayers' money squandered by the GLC. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)

  127
  is right to criticise it. Not only has it been a waste of ratepayers' money, but it is bogus. If one studies the lists of functions set out in the tables in annex C of the yellow book on the transfer of functions, one sees that, overwhelmingly, the functions of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils will go to local district and borough councils. A few—very few—will go to other bodies. For instance—and I believe that this arrangement has the support of the Opposition Front Bench—the historic buildings unit in London will join the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission and so join its undoubted expertise to that of the commission.
  The main burden of the campaign of the GLC and the MCCs is that their powers will somehow be swallowed up by Whitehall. That was why, at Question Time the other day, I said that the advertising campaign was a tissue of lies—and so it is. But now the GLC and the MCCs have the brass to complain to me that I am being unfair.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: The right hon. Gentleman tells us that most of the functions of the GLC and—as he said—the MCCs are to be taken over by fully democratic accountable authorities. Is that really true of Merseyside? Less than 20 per cent. of the total functions of the Merseyside county council will go to directly elected smaller district councils—or 4 per cent. to each of the five district councils on Merseyside. The rest of the functions will go to quangos, probably appointed by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman persists in propagating the same errors as the MCCs. No one has ever regarded a local government joint committee or joint board as a quango. It consists of elected councillors, nominated by elected councils. That is the service which devolves upon those councils, acting jointly. If the hon. Gentleman cannot understand that now, he will have a tough time on the Standing Committee—if he is appointed to it.
  I have said that the propaganda campaign was a tissue of lies. When one considers how much money has been spent on trying to bamboozle the people, one sees that the complaints are absurd. I note that the GLC's expenditure on advertising has been challenged by the district auditor. As the matter may now go before the courts, it would not be proper for me to comment, except to say that in the eyes of millions of Londoners it has been nothing but a scandal that the GLC has squandered such sums on such a campaign.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Hearing this knockabout stuff from the right hon. Gentleman is like being assaulted by a blancmange. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is about to make some points of substance. Does he not accept that the district auditor has considered the GLC's expenditure on its public information campaign and has said that nothing had been done which was out of order? On what, therefore, does the right hon. Gentleman base his final remark?
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman must await proceedings. We shall see what happens if the GLC challenges the auditor's findings.
  The GLC and the MCCs should be thinking about their ratepayers and their staffs. It is their interests that should
  128
  be uppermost now in the minds of their elected representatives. The great majority of staff will of course have a continuing role in the new structure.
  We have already established a staff commission and I shall shortly be publishing a memorandum setting out in more detail our proposals for staff transfers and for compensation for those who do not find places in the structure. I hope that in the interests of their staff, councils and the unions will start talking to the staff commission.
  When the Bill is published, we shall give our estimate of savings. However, I can tell the House that our best estimate is that, on rationalisation, savings alone will be close to the figure that we suggested at the last election. My message today to all authorities involved is that the policy goes steadily forward. I am confident that the House will shortly signify its agreement in principle by giving a Second Reading to the Local Government Bill.
  There are several other local government issues which, although not specifically mentioned in the Gracious Speech, are likely to figure in debates in the House. In the last Session, Parliament gave its approval to the Rates Act, and the proceedings of the Act are now being implemented. For instance, representatives of business and commercial ratepayers now have a statutory right to be consulted about local authority budgets and rating decisions. The code of practice has been published, and I hope that up and down the country chambers of commerce and other business organisations are making known their views about what they expect from local government. They may not have votes, but with the new powers their voices can and should be influential.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Everyone has a vote. It is called universal suffrage.
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Lady will no doubt be able to make her points when she replies. Even she must realise that companies do not have votes.
  Next year, local authorities for the first time will be obliged to provide information about their rating and spending policies to council tenants and others who pay their rates with their rents. In the following year, 1986–87, all domestic ratepayers will receive a breakdown of their rate demand to show how much of what they pay goes to each authority. These measures will help to strengthen accountability.
  The House will recognise that the power to limit the rates of high-spending authorities dominated our debates. Rate limitation is an essential part of our present financial policy towards local government. For too long, a minority of extravagant and high-spending councils have snapped their fingers at the spending guidelines approved by the House of Commons, and have forced the Government, year after year, as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, to demand further economies from all authorities, the great majority of which have done their best to live within those guidelines.
  The Act, for the first time, gives us the power to bring those high spenders into line and to protect their ratepayers who have been victims of their local authority's extravagance.
  Last July I named the 18 councils whose rates will be capped. They account for about three quarters of the budgeted overspend by all authorities this year. In 1978–79, those 18 councils spent a total of £1·3 billion.

  129
  This year they are planning to spend over £3 billion. That is a far faster rate of increase than local government costs and the average local government spending.
  Two of the councils, Portsmouth and Brent, have made it clear to me that they will live within the limit that we have set and will make every effort to spend no more than the target—1½ per cent. below the limit—but predictably, of course, the other 16 Labour-controlled authorities have lost no time in setting their massive rate-funded propaganda machine in motion. We have all seen the flood of propaganda claiming that rate limitation will mean the decimation of local services, the closure of nursery schools, old peoples' day centres, a massive increase in rents, and the rest. We know what to expect.
  Opposition Members will have read the article in the press by councillor David Wilshire, the leader of Wansclyke district council, who recently found himself at a meeting of the Labour-dominated local government campaign unit. He wrote:
  "I heard campaigners urge councils to make unnecessary and sensitive cuts and thus mobilise public opinion against the Government."
  That is what they are threatening. Those councils are trying to divert their ratepayers' attention from the fact that most other councils can provide a good service at a much lower cost by cutting waste and inefficiency. Other councils do not divert precious resources from local services to spend on the extravagant and unnecessary political causes so beloved of those high-spending councils.
  Dr. John Cunningham: How can the right hon. Gentleman say what he has just said about extravagance in the case of Haringey, Portsmouth, Sheffield or Thamesdown? All those authorities have been designated by him under the Rates Act, although their spending has risen by less than the national average and less than many Conservative-controlled authorities not so designated.
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is merely looking at the increases. If he considers the general spending and, specificially, the general level of rates that ratepayers have had to pay—some of my hon. Friends representing those areas have been prepared to talk about the rates—he will realise that this measure is indeed overdue.
  What I am asking from the majority of these authorities is a cash freeze on what they are spending this year. In other words, we are simply asking them to absorb the cost of inflation between this year and next. When local politicians quote figures for the percentage cuts, nine times out of 10 they compare my figure not with this year's spending but with what they would like to spend next year. Of course it is easy to make a massive shortfall like that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I have said many times, any authority with a genuine case has nothing to fear from the redetermination process. Yet although authorities are busy denouncing the spending levels, not one has yet seen fit to exercise the right of appeal under the Act.
  There are two possible explanations for that. No doubt some authorities are prepared to live within the spending levels proposed, so they can put their hands on their hearts and say that they are adopting a principled stand and not applying for redetermination without much cost to themselves. Most of the high-spending authorities can achieve the savings that we seek without dramatic or
  130
  unduly painful cuts. In other cases, in which circumstances may point to a genuine need for redetermination—for instance, if there has been a substantial use of balances in the current year which cannot be repeated next year—councillors are choosing to sacrifice their ratepayers and employees for the sake of a hardline political front. To betray those interests in that way is a very dangerous game. To those misguided warriors, I stress that I am still prepared to listen to any genuine case that any council wishes to put. Bur time is running out. I shall soon have to start the process of fixing the rate which, if it is not agreed, will come before the House for sanction.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Department is actively encouraging local authorities to seek redetermination because, unless one of them takes that step, the whole process will be seen to be a sham? Does he agree that he is backing away from day to day, saying that the books will not be examined after all and that there will merely be a cursory general examination of the position? It is a sham, and unless at least one council gives in to it, it will be shown to be a sham.
  Mr. Jenkin: That is not the situation at all. Some councils have put it to me through their spokesmen the contention that my statement that we seek merely no cash increase next year over this year bears no relation to the spending limit that we have set. The reason for that may well be that they have artificially reduced their spending this year by the use of balances, which they cannot repeat next year. I can give no categorical assurances, but that is precisely the kind of case which may be appropriate for redetermination. If those councils do not come forward and seek redetermination, they will simply have to live with a very much bigger cut than we intended. The choice is theirs. Under the act passed by the House it is for individual council to come forward.
  To avoid any misunderstanding, I should make it clear that it is not the rate but the rate limit that we shall be fixing.
  Mr. Jack Straw: The Secretary of State is being more than usually disingenuous. As he knows, authorities have not been prepared to seek redetermination because—this includes Portsmouth, if the recorded comments of the council leader are to be believed —they genuinely believe that is a Catch 22 situation. If they appeal to the Secretary of State, he could use his powers to set a lower limit or, if a higher limit is set, impose conditions involving unacceptable interference.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am aware that that is what they say. The leader of Portsmouth council has made it abundantly clear to me, and with his authority I made it clear on the radio in Portsmouth, that he is not applying for redetermination because he is prepared to live within the limits and perhaps even get down to the target. Nevertheless, I am aware that others have that fear. At the conference of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and in the House I have tried to make it clear that that fear is groundless and [ have explained how I envisage using my discretion under the legislation. If councils find that their rate limit forces them to make bigger savings than we sought to produce in setting the spending limit, they will have only themselves to blame if they have not used the powers provided in the Act.

  131
  Some councillors threaten to go further, in defiance of the law—to refuse to set a rate, to ignore the rate limit or deliberately to set a rate that will not match their budget. I urge them to pause and to think very carefully indeed. Under the law, such a course could lead to personal surcharge and disqualification. The irresponsibility of such action would be matched only by its sheer futility.
  The law will take its course, with or without the support of the Labour party. However reasonable a face the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) adopt, we know that many members of their party outside the House do not support so basic a principle as the rule of law. At the Labour party conference in Blackpool the Leader of the Opposition said:
  "We cannot sharpen legality as our main weapon for the future and simultaneously scorn legality if it doesn't suit us at the present time."
  The press reported that the conference cheered him to a man—perhaps with one or two exceptions.
  Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jenkin: The next day, the Labour party voted to support any council which broke the law and to recompense individual councillors if they broke the law and were surcharged. In fairness to the hon. Member for Copeland, I must make it clear that those resolutions were carried against his advice. The Guardian reported him as saying rather plaintively that they were
  "in contradiction of everything Neil and I have been saying on this issue all along".
  The local government press reported that he left Blackpool dismayed and anxious—and with reason, because a house so divided against itself is not one in which anyone can put any faith at all. In fact, of course, the law will come to his aid, as we are already beginning to see. Only the other day the leader of Camden council warned of
  "hesitancy in our own ranks"
  and the risk of financial commitments and responsibilities. The law will be enforced and I have no doubt that it will be obeyed, to the benefit of ratepayers. For all 18 capped councils, rate increases will be lower than they otherwise would have been and in some cases there will actually be rate cuts.
  Mr. Heifer: Like most of his colleagues on the Conservative Front Bench, the right hon. Gentleman constantly claims that the labour party does not believe in the rule of law. That is a deliberate untruth and he and they know it. What has been said is that the Government are bringing in laws which democratically elected people will come up against whether they like it or not. It is clear that in those circumstances certain councillors will be forced to fight laws which are unjust and bad and in some respects class laws introduced by the Government in the interests of their own dogmatic attitudes rather than in the interests of democracy in this country.
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman stands condemned from his own mouth. He asserts the right of people to pick and choose which laws they will obey. Therefore, I feel strengthened in my belief that the Labour party outside the House and some Labour Members, including the chairman of the Labour party, hold the rule of law in contempt.
  A moment ago I made the point that capping the rates of the high spenders would enable me to begin to help the
  132
  low spenders. In July I announced provisional spending targets for 1985–86 for all local authorities. Those targets implied an increase in current expenditure provision in excess of £800 million—above what was provided in the White Paper. They would allow most responsible low-spending authorities to increase spending next year by 4·25 per cent. in line with the forecast of inflation. That was a substantially better deal for low-spenders than I was able to allow for this year. It would not have been possible without the headroom provided by rate limitation.
  By contrast, the highest spending authorities have provisional targets for next year implying cash cuts of up to 1·5 per cent—meaning real terms cuts of about 6 per cent. Those targets are therefore more realistic than was possible in the current year, but they do not mean relaxation of our determination to hold down all areas of public expenditure, including that by local authorities. For that reason, as the House will recall, I proposed a much tougher grant holdback tariff for next year as a deterrent to further overspending.
  Naturally, I have had many comments on those proposals, which are now being considered. I hope to make the full statement at the usual time in December, and the House will then be invited to approve the relevant reports early in the new year.
  While that will be the time for detailed debate, perhaps I could just say this. Since 1979, the Government have sought to bring public spending under firm control to reduce the burden on the private wealth-creating sector. Helped by the pressures of the block grant system and by the system of targets and penalties, the great majority of local authorities have played their part in that, and the Government are appreciative of their efforts. It has not been easy and some difficult decisions have had to be taken. Local government, after a prolonged period when local current spending rose steadily, year after year, by an average of around 3·5 per cent. in real terms—well ahead of the growth of GDP—has achieved a reduction in that figure to below 1 per cent. As rate capping begins to bite on the few authorities that have not contributed to that achievement, the figure will improve still further.
  Not the least of the consequences of local government's achievement of bringing spending under control is that for this year, 1984–85, rate increases are the lowest for 10 years. It is right to put those achievements of local government on the record for, amid all the argument about the rate support grant system, the Government have worked with local government to secure many of our objectives.
  Many councils have made and are making strenuous efforts to become more efficient. That brings me to the question of contracting out local government services. Three years' experience of the direct labour organisation legislation in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 has shown the substantial benefits of competition for local authority construction and maintenance work. In other services notably refuse collection, significant savings have been achieved either through using private firms or through improved efficiency of councils' own staff faced with competition from outside contractors.
  In spite of the evidence of savings to be won, most local authorities still fight shy of seeking competitive tenders for their services. The Government therefore propose to take action to secure more competition in further areas of local government activity. We shall be consulting local authority associations and the relevant sectors of private

  133
  industry about extending arrangements, similar to those already applied to construction and maintenance work, to a further range of activities. Our precise proposals will be set out in the consultation paper, but I can tell the House now that they will include such areas as refuse collection, vehicle maintenance, and cleaning, where the private sector has already shown the savings that can be achieved.
  That is not all. The Government are convinced that there is scope for greater involvement of the private sector in a wide range of other activities, We shall, therefore, also consult about taking power to require authorities periodically to assess the costs of some other specific activities and to report publicly to their ratepayers on how their own in-house costs compare with the costs of using private sector companies to do the work instead. By that means authorities will become more cost-conscious, and their ratepayers will see where savings could be made.
  Mr. Allan Roberts rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: If the hon. Gentleman will wait for the consultation document, he will find out how those savings will be made.
  The private sector for its part will be better able to identify opportunities to tender for work for local authorities. We are convinced that there are worthwhile savings to be made. What is needed now is more effective pressure to go out and get them.
  Mr. Richard Hickmet: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, if local authorities invite tenders for certain services, when those tenders are submitted the lowest tender will be accepted? Recently, the process has been carried out, the in-house price reduced but not to the lowest level and the most efficient service has not won the tender or the private sector been used.
  Mr. Jenkin: We are well aware that some changes are necessary in the 1980 Act to make the DLO legislation effective. When we legislate, which is likely to be next session, we intend to examine and tighten the legislation.
  I said a moment ago, that local government had achieved a substantial slowing down of spending and that this year's rate increase was the lowest for 10 years. Nevertheless, I am aware that there is dissatisfaction within local government and outside about the way in which the whole local government finance system works. That dissatisfaction goes much wider than the dislike of rates. It embraces the whole question of how local authorities are financed—a complex mixture of government grants, local rates and fees and charges—and the implications of the regime for local accountability and for central and local government relationships, they are major issues.
  That is why I have asked my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, together with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) to undertake a series of internal studies into the whole system. They have already started work. They will look at the main features of the present system, including the rate support grant distribution, the balance between Exchequer and local financing, measures to improve accountability, and how councils might best raise the local revenues they need.
  The studies will involve very careful consideration and in due course full consultations on proposals for reform.
  134
  They will not be completed overnight, nor should they be, for they are intended to provide a sound basis for the financing of local government in the long term.
  Concern about the way local government is working is not confined to the financial system. Many observers are worried that the conventions traditionally observed by all political parties in the conduct of local government business are beginning to break down. The way local councils are run is changing. Not all these changes are necessarily bad; indeed, many reflect the changing political and social climate in which local government operates. However, the changes put the system under great strain.
  Local government legislation is based on a 19th-century model of councils controlled by part-time councillors operating for the benefit of the community as a whole, with little reference to national politics, but too often today the conventional checks and balances are by-passed, the rights of minorities on councils are overridden, and standing orders are manipulated so as to stifle debate. We see, in some areas, the politicisation of officers. Some job advertisements carry clear signals that, unless political attitudes are openly promoted by candidates, they need not bother to apply. The officers of one council become elected members of another with no recognition whatever given to the conflicts of interest that inevitably arise.
  The public, whatever their political beliefs, dislike the use of ratepayers' money for political propaganda. Sections 142 and 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 give wide discretion, but today that discretion is being abused. That presents a challenge to local democracy, but, as I have said, it may also reflect deep secular trends in local government.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When Cabinet Ministers open debates on the Loyal Address it is customary for their speeches to cover the area of their responsibility. The Secretary of State has spoken for more than half an hour about local government and local government finance. However, his Department has broad responsibilities to which he has not referred, including housing and, most importantly, the Government's commitment to conservation.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. The Secretary of State must take responsibility for his speech. As he has not yet finished, I do not know what he will say.
  Mr. Jenkin: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, but the subject designated by you. Mr. Speaker, for today's debate was local government and transport. I am opening the debate on local government and, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will no doubt say something about transport. Those were the subjects chosen, I understand, after consultation with members of the Opposition Front Bench.
  I was talking about abuses and the changed pattern of local government. Those changes are too involved to allow snap decisions and immediate legislation. I have concluded that we need a clear and dispassionate study not only of the abuses but of the underlying changes which those abuses reflect. I shall shortly put before the House proposals for an impartial inquiry into those issues, on which I shall consult the Opposition parties. I shall also be in touch with the local government associations. I am

  135
  encouraged by the reactions I have received so far to my preliminary announcement of my intention to hold such an inquiry. I am sure that local government generally recognises the value of this study aimed at protecting the future health of local democracy.
  There are many other topics which hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to raise during the debate. On public expenditure, it would be inappropriate for me to say anything at this stage in the light of decisions which have yet to be taken by the Government. All I would say is that I fully recognise the deep concern expressed by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends about the need to work out a better system for local authority capital spending which so far as possible avoids the problems we have faced since I had to ask for restraint last July. I am very grateful to the overwhelming majority of local authorities which have agreed to abide by the terms of that restraint, but I am aware of the serious difficulties that it has posed for them. Given the prospective size of the cash limit breach, it was inevitable that some action had to be taken, and I am glad that we were able to stop short of a full moratorium.
  The main local government debates of the Session will centre on abolition and rate capping. Those issues must be properly debated, and the debates will be fierce and no doubt controversial. But in the end let us all remember that we live in a parliamentary democracy where Parliament is the supreme authority. The rule of law, the will of Parliament, and the general common sense and temper of our people are the foundations upon which our system of parliamentary democracy and our civil freedoms rest. There may be some—very few—in local government who see their position as local councillors as a power base from which to challenge the will of Parliament and the rule of law. That is not the way. In all the debates during the coming months hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to remember that.
  4.24 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: The House has just listened to a long speech based on one sentence in the Gracious Speech, which referred to local government reform, and I regret that the Secretary of State did not refer to the other sentence in the Gracious Speech, which dealt with his Department's responsibilities for the environment. They may be two brief sentences in the Gracious Speech, but they cover many highly controversial issues in local government and the environment, and I agree with the Secretary of State that the Bill to abolish the metropolitan county councils and the GLC will be the most controversial of this Session.
  The Secretary of State said that people had doubted his commitment to that measure; it was not his commitment that we doubted, but any evidence for the measure or his wisdom in promoting it. He said that he hoped the issues would be fully debated in Parliament. We intend to ensure that that happens. I hope, therefore, that he will give us a guarantee that the measure will not be subject to a guillotine before it has been properly examined by the House.
  We have just begun a new Session of Parliament, and it is clear from the Secretary of State's speech that Government policy on local authorities will be as malign
  136
  and malevolent as ever. It will almost certainly be characterised by the incompetence, vacillation and double standards that we have seen during the past 12 months.
  Unhappily for local government, the Secretary of State does not seem to recognise the importance of its role and functions and its contribution to the national well-being of our country and to our democratic institutions and processes. Those issues are fundamentally important to us, and will remain at the forefront of the political debate. Given Britain's chronic problems of unemployment, inadequate and, in many areas, declining infrastructure in public services, the special difficulties that are faced by urban communities and inner cities, the problems of the black and ethnic minorities, and of rural decline, it is impossible for the Opposition to accept what the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues propose: that in the face of all this, the role of local government should be a declining one.
  It is also unacceptable to the Opposition that the dangerous and accelerating trend of the past five years of elected local councils becoming the controlled agents of a central bureaucracy should continue. Are we expected to live in a society where more and more powers are removed from democratically elected councils and given to non-elected unaccountable elites, as has happened in the administration of the Health Service, the water industry, transport and others such as the fire service and refuse disposal? That seems to be the fate of much of the work now being carried out by the metropolitan counties and the GLC.
  Since 1979 local authority expenditure powers and the ability to make local decisions based on local needs and issues have been increasingly curtailed by this Administration. The Government have pursued, for political and philosophical reasons, an attack on local government expenditure; and associated with this has been a barrage of frequently repeated and often unsubstantiated assertions about overspending and profligacy. The language of political abuse has become familiar, and we heard much more of it again this afternoon. A cool and dispassionate examination of the position could not fail to rebut most of those assertions as nonsense. I emphasise again, in view of what the Secretary of State said about the Rates Act 1984, that there are no rational macro-economic arguments in favour of central control of that part of local government expenditure raised from revenue, whatever the source. There should be control of that part of local government expenditure provided by the Exchequer; few, if any, would question that.
  Even if one accepts—I do not—the Government's arguments about overspending, it represents 0·7 per cent. of total public expenditure in 1984–85. The Rates Act is unlikely to make any significant difference to that, and in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said it could make the situation worse for those authorities not designated. Although he talked about fairer targets, he did not remind the House that, as he is again reducing the total money available, those authorities will continue to be squeezed by his policy. That says nothing of the Treasury's windfall of more than £0·5 billion—£555 million—which it receives in clawback because of his penalty system. Ironically, the Treasury has a vested interest, through the failures of the present local government finance system, in allowing local authorities to overspend. It benefits as a direct result. That is one of the supreme ironies created by this Administration.

  137
  Frankly, the Government are aiming at the wrong targets, if indeed they are taking aim at all. The Secretary of State often seems to be shooting in the dark and hitting himself in the foot. Each time a semblance of an argument has emerged from his Department in support of existing policies, it has been obliterated by informed criticism and abundant evidence.
  The right hon. Gentleman takes pride in the setting up of the Audit Commission by his colleagues. It said of the present financial arrangements:
  "A detailed review of the present arrangements for grant distribution should be undertaken to devise solutions to the problems that this report has identified."
  The right hon. Gentleman is apparently setting up an internal inquiry which will not take evidence or be open to the scrutiny of the professional bodies, the local government associations, individuals or political parties. In the face of all the evidence and criticism, that is absolutely unacceptable to the Opposition.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood what I said. Of course we start with the internal study. Proposals will then be put forward on which there will be widespread consultations. That will be the point at which there will be an opportunity for people to comment and put their views forward. My right hon. and hon. Friends will be pleased to receive any proposals. Indeed, the local authority associations have already made it clear that they will put forward their proposals as part of the internal study. The first stage is the internal study, but before there is any question of legislation there will be widespread consultations. Changes of that magnitude deserve nothing less.
  Dr. Cunningham: That is somewhat reassuring, but it is strange that the right hon. Gentleman should be insisting on coming forward with proposals before he has taken evidence from those so closely involved.
  In local government today, after five years of Conservative rule, normal relationships have almost totally broken down. Massive and damaging changes have been inflicted on councils of all persuasions, major and substantial changes are being implemented even now, and after all that the right hon. Gentleman is setting up his inquiry. Many people in local government think that it is too little, too late.
  At the Conservative party conference in Brighton the right hon. Gentleman talked about local councillors and the need to review their role and functions. Incidentally, if his review is carried out on an unbiased and open basis, I shall welcome it. However, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "What we need is a clear and dispassionate study not only of the abuses but also of those underlying changes which the abuses reflect".
  If that is his view of how to approach problems, why did he not adopt the same approach before deciding to abolish the metropolitan counties and the GLC? Why was there no clear and dispassionate study of the issues involved there? His attitudes are damningly inconsistent, as are those of his ministerial colleagues. Only as recently as this week the Minister of State, Department of Transport said of a proposed GLC lorry ban:
  "I would urge, as have done repeatedly, if they decide to press ahead with the proposals that they first hold a public inquiry. This is the normal democratic procedure for subjecting major proposals like this to independent public scrutiny. Hundreds of people have asked them to hold an inquiry and I trust that they will heed those calls".
  138
  Is it really the Government's submission that an inquiry into a proposed lorry ban in central London is more deserving of proper investigation and consideration than the abolition of the authority which governs the affairs of our capital city? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman expects the House and the people to accept? It is unacceptable.
  The Secretary of Stae for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: I shall in a moment. Why does not the Secretary of State for the Environment face the fact that, overwhelmingly, the evidence is against what the Government are proposing for the metropolitan counties and the GLC?
  Mr. Ridley rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: I shall give way in a moment. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman face up to the reality that in the metropolitan county and GLC areas the public are moving steadily in favour of Labour party policy and against what he is proposing? Why does he not face up to the fact that his own GLC colleague, councillor Robert Mitchell, who represents Wanstead and Woodford, recently said in The Guardian:
  "London is the victim of a Tory deception".
  The right hon. Gentleman's friend and colleague added:
  "The alleged transfer of GLC functions to the boroughs to give the electorate more direct control is quite simply a deception".
  We certainly agree with that, and so do most Londoners.
  Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for quoting the Minister of State in relation to the GLC lorry ban. If people are adversely and discriminatingly affected by matters such as a new road or a major planning application, the Government have no hesitation in allowing a public inquiry. Surely that is exactly on all fours with the GLC lorry ban. It is absolutely right and proper that there should be an investigation into that. That is not a matter of policy but is a question of individuals being adversely affected compared with others.
  Dr. Cunningham: I do not dissent from anything which the right hon. Gentleman has said. We are in favour of such an approach, all the more so in respect of the elimination of elections and the removal of people's rights to elect authorities to govern their affairs.
  Mr. Ridley rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: I shall not give way again.
  What I have said is even more the case when the matter has not been based on any inquiry, evidence or examination. This is a far more serious matter for millions of people. We are asking for some consistency from the Government.
  Mr. Ridley: In that case, is the hon. Gentleman—
  Dr. Cunningham: I am not giving way.
  There is no evidence to support what the Secretary of State for the Environment is proposing, nor is there any evidence that public opinion, let alone the opinion of his Conservative colleague from Wanstead and Woodford.. is on his side. It is claimed that these proposals return accountability to the people and powers to the boroughs, but there is no evidence to support that either.
  Indeed, it now appears that, in their haste, the Government are moving into even further difficulties

  139
  because organisations such as the Greater London Enterprise Board, the joint police boards, the fire boards, and perhaps others will be involved, and there is a danger that the Bill may turn out to be a hybrid Bill. I hope, in spite of what the Secretary of State for the Environment said, that the Government's proposals for all these matters will be spelt out in detail in the Bill and not left to be subject to enabling powers at some later date. That would be an abuse of Parliament and of the procedures of the House.
  The Government have produced no case for the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC. Their original figures for savings have disappeared without trace, and even the Treasury—so we learn from documents leaked to The Guardian a few weeks ago—does not believe that any savings will result, unless there are major reductions in services and major job losses, in what the Treasury euphemistically describes as strict manpower control. The reality seems to be, as was pointed out in the inquiry and investigation instigated by the metropolitan counties and carried out by Coopers and Lybrand, that the Government's only effective options are to cut services, to raise rates, to disguise rate rises by so-called safety nets or to subsidise the boroughs in some other way.
  In none of this can it be argued that powers are being returned to the electors or to the boroughs concerned. There will be no increase in local accountability. There will be more centralisation of control. There will be no saving of money for the ratepayers, and there will be no more effective delivery of services—the contrary is likely to be the case.
  Even the London and south-east regional planning conference, much lauded by the Minister for Local Government, had this to say about the Government's proposals in a recent letter. Mr. B.T. Buckle, the secretary of the conference, said:
  "It has become clear that the principal effect of the proposal so far as planning is concerned would be to make the Secretary of State the strategic planning authority for Greater London but without the obligation to prepare an overall and detailed scrutiny through an examination in public."
  So much for the claims about public inquiries. Mr. Buckle continues:
  "This would be an outcome which this conference would deplore."
  Mr. Buckle is quite right.
  The Secretary of State said little about services and jobs, and virtually nothing about housing. That is not surprising because in housing the Government's record is shameful and appalling. There is a real housing crisis. Some 78,000 households were accepted as homeless in England in 1983, and the figure has since increased. Over 1 million households are currently on local authority waiting lists in Britain. Over 190,000 households were living in overcrowded accommodation in 1983. Over 190,000 sheltered dwellings were still needed in England to meet the urgent needs of elderly people. Thousands of dwellings were needed for people who are disabled and unable to look after themselves physically. Over 1 million dwellings were unfit for human habitation. Over 390,000 houses lack one or more basic amenity. Over 500,000 houses required repairs costing more than £7,000. Over
  140
  2,500,000 dwellings required repairs costing up to £7,000 and over 1,500,000 million dwellings suffered from major design defects.
  The crisis has been exacerbated by the annual reductions in the housing investment programme allocation, which is now down by 70 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79. It is a scandal. Ignoring inflation, for every £100 spent on public housing in 1974–75, only £65 will be spent in the current financial year.
  The reality is that not only is this an appalling record, but it is increasingly recognised as such right across the spectrum—by the building and construction industry, by the Building Employers Confederation, by the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, by the Royal Institute of British Architects, by the National Council of Building Material Producers and even, this week, by the CBI. As the Financial Times said recently:
  "As business failures continue at record levels in this country, bankruptcies increased most steeply in the building and construction industry."
  Those are the real measures of the Government's approach to building and construction.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: That criticism, coming from the hon. Gentleman, is a bit thick. Does he agree that, during the period of the last Labour Government, capital spending on housing was reduced by 45 per cent. and for the corresponding period of almost exactly the same number of years under the present Government, the figure was 17 per cent? There was more than twice as fast a fall under the previous Government as under this Government.
  Dr. Cunningham: The reality is that, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's protestations, when this Conservative Government took office, housing investment was more than double what it is now, after six years of this Administration. We learn to our dismay that even now talks are in progress about further substantial cuts, not only in building and construction, but possibly to the urban programme, which would have a devastating impact on those areas of the inner cities where stress is already at its highest.
  Sadly, it is now apparent that racial harassment in housing is widespread, and on the increase. Black and ethnic community representatives, supported by the Commission for Racial Equality, are calling for legislation to compel housing authorities to protect those threatened. I ask the Secretary of State to examine those issues as a matter of urgency, and if he is unaware of the evidence, I shall write to him about it, because this is a matter for grave concern.
  This summer witnessed a shortage of water for millions of people. There was no national water shortage, simply an inefficient industry and an infrastructure unable to cope with drought in certain regions. That occurred against a background of underspend of £110 million on construction in the water industry in the past two financial years. Can we have an assurance that the Government will learn the lessons of this failure and ensure that those who suffered will have a fairer deal? Incidentally, these people will also experience—to add insult to injury—a major increase in their water rates.
  There is reference in the Gracious Speech to legislation to protect the environment. Urgent action to do something is desperately needed, as we have been telling the Government for many months. We call for an urgent review of the work of the Wildlife and Countryside Act,

  141
  and for a review of the operation and environmental impact of the energy industry, in particular of the nuclear industry.
  We call for urgent action to reduce the impact of acidic precipitation on the environment. The Government should act with more vigour and urgency to protect our national heritage in the countryside from the increasingly malign impact of the agriculture industry. We must take action to halt the over-use—the abuse—of pesticides and fertilisers. Damage done to flora, fauna, topsoil and water courses is serious and increasing. The physical destruction of heaths, moorlands, marshes, meadows, wetlands, deciduous woods and sites of special scientific interest is appalling and should be halted.
  The 1983 annual report of the Nature Conservancy Council said:
  "There is just about enough habitat left to ensure continuity of Britain's wild plants and animals if it is conserved. The danger is that if it is not whole-heartedly protected now, in 10 years' time it will be too late."
  The reality is that over 245 sites of special scientific interest have been lost, of which 156 have disappeared in the past 12 months alone.
  The 1984 annual report of the Nature Conservancy Council says:
  "The next 18 months could well determine the future for nature conservation in many parts of the country. There are at least some glimmers of hope in the greater public awareness and an Act of Parliament which, with minor amendment must bring great benefits. The greatest imponderable of all, however, remains whether the financial structures of agriculture can be reformed in a way that befriends nature conservation. Until this happens we remain gravely concerned and there is little time to set matters right."
  That is a Government body which is rightly warning the House, the Government and the country of the urgency of such matters. We have said many times that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 has failed and cannot combat the massive and often malign impact of the common agricultural policy on the British countryside.
  I repeat my offer and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)—which I regret has not been taken up although it was first made months ago, publicly and privately, to Ministers—to begin discussions immediately to seek an agreed Bill to end the current widespread abuses of our natural heritage.
  The impact of people on their environment is increasing too as mobility and demands for sport, recreation and leisure increase. They will continue to grow and so will pressure on the countryside. The Government's funding of the development of sport and leisure facilities should be increased to take account of that.
  There are many other important issues. The Royal Commission was right to have doubts about the Government's intentions on the implementation of part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. We would like to see action on sea dumping, the disposal of nuclear waste and other related matters.
  The reality is that over a period the Government have been carrying out a sustained attack on local councils. In propagating that attack they have not been concerned about the impact on services or jobs. That is at a time when many communities need more assistance; when unemployment is increasing; when it is now widely recognised that Britain's infrastructure is in decay; and when, perhaps more than ever before in the recent past, it is essential for us to have an infrastructure that will be of major benefit in helping to regenerate Britain's economy. At this time
  142
  the Government give less support. They make cuts and intend to go on giving less and less support to those communities and people so grievously damaged by their policies over the past four or five years.
  The Secretary of State's speech this afternoon and the proposals in the Gracious Speech, far from helping to correct those problems, seem, on all the evidence, likely to make them much worse. That is why the Secretary of State's speech and what is not included in the Gracious Speech are so regrettable.
  4.54 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) had enormous cheek when he suggested that health powers were being taken away from elected councillors and given to an elite. He may well have forgotten that the Labour party started that trend when it took responsibility for the hospitals from the London county council and created the National Health Service, but it suits him to be forgetful.
  The hon. Gentleman also talked twice about the breakdown in relations between local and central Government. Yes, there has been a breakdown, deliberately engineered by those on the Left who have no interest in local government but only in confrontation.
  The hon. Gentleman tried to compare the GLC's stupidity in trying to cripple London and lose jobs in restricting transport without a public inquiry with the Government decision to abolish the GLC. Doubtless the hon. Gentleman chooses to forget that to abolish the GLC was a general election commitment; that was the public inquiry endorsed by the British electorate.
  It is significant that this afternoon, on a matter that is of major importance to the Labour party, there are fewer than 20 Labour Members on the Back Benches. [Interruption.] That represents about half the number of London Labour Members of Parliament.
  Let me ignore the babblings from the well-known hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who threw out the previous Member for that constituency, Mr. Arthur Lewis, who had served the House remarkably well, and deal with two issues. The first is a purely local issue which affects Camden and Kensington and Chelsea in particular. A recently discovered loophole in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 is being exploited by ruthless developers. I brought that to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues some 12 months ago. I expect an answer today on what my right hon. Friend proposes to do about schedule 8 of the Town and Country Planning Act. His officials have had more than enough time to come to a conclusion on that. If that abuse goes on unchecked, it will cost ratepayers millions of pounds or make local authorities give planning permission that will be wholly wrong. I look forward to an answer later tonight.
  The second issue is a wider London issue. I hope that my right hon. Friend will issue a decision swiftly—I do not mind what it is—on the stolport. A lack of decision is costing a mass of money and a reopened inquiry would be a negation of democracy.
  When we listen to Labour Members and those in London who object to the abolition of the GLC, it is important to give one's credentials for the abolition of the GLC. I served for 25 years in local government in London on a borough council as well as on the GLC housing committee as a co-opted member. I opposed the creation

  143
  of the GLC. I resent those in this House and in another place, some even on the Conservative Benches, who believe that there is something wrong with abolishing the GLC and who equate abolition with the loss of democracy. I remind them that the boroughs are far closer to democracy than the GLC, or, indeed, the metropolitan councils.
  I say to any of my right hon. or hon. Friends, who are no longer on the Front Bench, who represent London constituencies and who do not like what is being done that they had the opportunity to express their views to the London Conservative Members group. If they did not do that, we do not want to hear from them on this issue now.
  I recall the campaign that was waged by the London county council against its own abolition. Indeed, on that occasion I gave evidence to the Royal Commission. It looked at all the facts some 20 years ago and there is no need for any further inquiries. On that occasion, the London county council, with a Labour majority, did not spend the ratepayers' money in the same way as the GLC is doing. Unlike the GLC, the old London county council did not indulge in an appalling campaign of lies, using a Goebbels-like technique. If one tells a lie often enough, and one tells a bigger and better lie every day, people will begin to believe that there is some truth in it. That is the view of the GLC.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: No, I will not give way.
  The old London county council did not do that, for two reasons. First, Herbert Morrison would never have permitted it and would not have tolerated the Livingstones of this world in the London Labour party. Secondly, the London county council had a Labour party that was composed of honourable men and women who recognised the supremacy of Parliament and knew that ratepayers' money was not to be spent on political propaganda. Despite what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said today, I hope that he will clamp down on such expenditure and return to the position that I remember, and that he will recall from his local government days, when local authorities did not spend money on items which Parliament had not specifically authorised under statute.
  Do we have to go on enduring the anti-police committees of the GLC, Camden and Islington? None of those authorities is a police authority because none of them is fit to be such. But those authorities still go on spending money and attacking the police. That money comes from the ratepayers. My right hon. Friend has not yet given the ratepayers much comfort in that regard. I hope that he will consider relating statutory functions to expenditure.
  The Bill is soon to be published. I hope that it will come quickly and that it will cover such things as the enterprise board. There has been massive asset-stripping. Indeed, the GLC sold properties to that phoney body for peanuts. I hope that the situation will be rectified. However, if there is any danger of hybridity, perhaps a separate Bill should be introduced. The Greater London Enterprise Board is a wasteful body and it should not be allowed to get away with it. It is not directly elected and is, at the best of times, a pretty grim quango.
  Mr. Tony Banks: It is also saving 2,000 jobs.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: It is clear that members of the GLC do not understand how the House runs. One day they may learn that the House believes in democracy, and that it and the other place settle what the law is to be. The minnows over the road will have to learn that lesson, and I hope that they do so sooner rather than later.
  Mr. Chris Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his comments about the fitness of Islington council's police committee to discuss and decide on matters relating to the policing of its area? I am a co-opted member of that committee and I trust that he was not addressing his remarks to me.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because he respects the conventions of the House and stands up instead of talking from his posterior.
  Islington borough council is not fit to be an authority that controls the police. If Islington decides to set up a police committee to work along the lines set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, that is a different matter. But that is not what is being done by authorities such as the GLC and Camden.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Islington police and enlightenment committee, of which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) is a member, is itself the subject of police investigations?
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I was trying to spare the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that agony. It is quite clear that this legislation will be opposed—
  Mr. Chris Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State is obviously quite confused about matters relating to the policing of the area that I represent. He is referring to one body, but the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) is referring to a completely different—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised a point of information and not a point of order on which I can rule.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I respect the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, and I look forward with interest to reading his speech and seeing how he sets the record straight in his usual courteous way.
  Ms. Harriet Harman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: There is a limited amount of time, and the hon. Lady can make her speech later.
  Much of the Labour party's campaign has been fought not with Labour party funds but with those of the ratepayers. It has been run using a pretty low sort of public relations exercise. Public opinion polls are constantly being quoted. Yet another poster opposite this building tells us that 74 per cent. of Londoners do not like what the Government are doing. Apparently fewer than 20,000 Londoners have been asked their opinion in all the polls run by the organisation concerned. If I had to choose between those who had been polled and the several million who voted in London for more Tory Members of Parliament than at any time since the war, I know who I or anyone in his right mind would choose.
  Londoners are being manipulated by such public opinion polls. My hon. Friends and I have received masses

  145
  of letters but precious few of them have been genuine. They have come from voluntary bodies that have been blackmailed by the GLC into protesting, and from people who have been scared into believing that they will lose their bus passes. That was one of the most wicked and deliberate lies to be perpetrated by the Labour party.
  Yesterday we witnessed a phenomenon in the United States of America in which the silent majority spoke out in vast numbers in a clear repudiation of the vociferous outpourings of a tiny minority. It was also a repudiation of the media, who were out of touch with reality. The reality is that the public in America supported a view expressed by those who submit themselves to election and not by those who are paid to express a view which they never test personally with the voters. I believe that the same will be true in England, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may be certain that at the next general election the public will back what has been done only with the rider that it has been done a year later than it should have been.
  5.8 pm
  Mr. John Cartwright: The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) deployed his case with his customary vigour, and I shall take up some of his points later. But first I shall concentrate on the commitment in the Gracious Speech to increased competition in the provision of local bus services.
  The White Paper on which the Government's proposals are based, which was published last July, made a fair case for some change in the present arrangements. For example, it pointed out that the current system was devised 50 or more years ago and that patterns of life and transport needs have changed considerably since then. We must also recognise that, under the present arrangements, local authorities have little choice of operator and so cannot really judge whether the services that they are buying are the most efficient and the least expensive. We must also accept that the present arrangements give little encouragement to new forms of public transport or hire transport — for example, the use of minibuses and allowing taxis and hire cars to carry passengers paying separate fares.
  Increasing competition does not necessarily mean doing away with all bus planning. To improve the efficiency and standards of bus services, cost-effectiveness must be combined with network planning. Scrapping all network planning in urban areas and letting buses wander wherever their fancy takes them will not necessarily lead to greater competition, improved efficiency, lower fares or better services. It might lead to operators competing on the profitable routes while they ignore the non-profitable routes. It is not feasible to have buses chasing along streets hunting for passengers in a competitive race or free-for-all.
  The evidence on which the Government base their claim in the White Paper is limited. For example, the White Paper states:
  "The changes resulting from deregulation in Devon have been rather limited in scale."
  Of Norfolk the White Paper states:
  "it is not yet possible to evaluate the overall savings in revenue support."
  Only in Hereford have major benefits from deregulation been claimed, and they have been challenged by outside commentators.
  At present, private operators undertake only about 8 per cent. of stage carriage mileage and carry only about 3 per
  146
  cent. of passengers. Yet the White Paper produced last July proposes that 88 per cent. of stage carriage mileage should come under private operation and that later, if Greater London is finally included, about 100 per cent. should be privately operated. Surely it is sensible to have further trials and experiments before making such a major alteration.
  It is possible to imagine other means of exerting commercial pressures on operators which allow for the overall planning of bus services to ensure a decent service for all. Arrangements for franchising bus services—for example, by making bus companies compete for networks, through tendering against specifications drawn up to meet particular planning problems or commercial criteria—would be a better way to increase competition and encourage innovation.
  Many hon. Members are worried about the impact of the Government's proposals on the rural areas. Ministers may say that innovation and transition grants will be available, but such grants will not last for ever. Do the Government expect us to believe that it is feasible to switch financial responsibility to local authorities when local authority expenditure is under such unprecedentedly severe pressure? Such a proposition will not commend itself to many hon. Members of both sides of the House.
  According to recent polling of hon. Members, a clear majority in the House fears that rural bus services will be undermined. In many rural areas the continuation of a bus service is the lifeline of the community. If the Government introduce legislation based on the White Paper, we shall examine it with great care. The Government's case is far from made out.
  I turn now to the commitment to abolish the GLC and the metroplitan counties. The proposed legislation does not appear in a vacuum. It comes from the same team that produced the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the Local Government Finance Act 1982 and the Rates Act 1984. If hon. Members did not like those, in a well-worn political phrase, they "ain't seen nothing yet!". Those three Acts have two things in common. They provide for a continuing centralisation of power away from local authorities towards central Government and they were produced under pressure. We are talking about legislation on the hoof, as the Government blunder from one problem to another.
  The Government claim in the yellow document produced last July that they are
  "firmly committed to carrying through their manifesto promise to abolish an unnecessary tier of local government and to produce a major transfer of power and responsibility to the London boroughs and the metroplitan district councils."
  I endorse that aim. As a former London borough council leader, I believe that the primary unit of local government is the borough and the district. However, that is not the effect of the Government's proposed legislation.
  Like the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) my eye lit on the article in The Guardian on Monday this week by Mr. Robert Mitchell, the Conservative member of the GLC for Wanstead and Woodford, who said clearly:
  "The alleged transfer of GLC function to the boroughs to give the electorate more direct control is, quite simply, a deception."
  That is the view of someone who is in a strong postion to see what is going on.
  If the aim of the exercise is to give more power to the lowest local government levels, why are so many reserve powers being retained by the Secretary of State? Why, under the terms of the yellow paper, must the Secretary of

  147
  State issue "regional strategic guidance" on planning? Why do authorities have to have regard to that strategic guidance? That is a massive shift of power to Marsham street, away from elected local authorities.
  Why must the Secretary of State have
  "reserve powers to take over the operation of urban traffic control systems if the districts are unable to make satisfactory arrangements"?
  I cannot accept that traffic control and management can be imposed by civil servants in the centre of London on distant metropolitan districts. Waste disposal is a basic, bedrock function. Even to deal with that, the Secretary of State has a
  "reserve power to establish statutory joint arrangements … if he is not satisfied that those made by the authorities voluntarily are adequate."
  There is a steady, insidious shift of power away from local authorities to civil servants and Ministers in Whitehall.
  My second criticism of the proposed legislation is that it is not carefully thought through. A wide measure of independent opinion deeply regrets that the Government made no attempt to make an independent analysis of the defects in the 1963 reorganisation in Greater London or the 1974 reorganisation in the provinces.
  There may be a case for change. The GLC and the metropolitan counties may be far from perfect instruments. That is certainly my view and that of many others. There is a case for examination, change, reform or even replacement, but there is no case for the Government presenting us with a back-of-the-envelope commitment from their manifesto without any careful preparation or examination of what might follow from a simple and straightforward act of abolition. Proof of that is in the snowstorm of duplicated consultation documents issued from Marsham street as the Government discovered one practical problem after another which would flow from abolition. The Secretary of State told us today that the date for abolition is still firm—1 April 1986. He says that the GLC and the metropolitan counties will no longer exist after that date. But serious practical problems will flow from that tight time scale.
  The Government plan to achieve enactment of the legislation by July or October 1985, depending on progress in this House and the House of Lords. That will leave about seven months for the changeover to be achieved. All the quangos will have to be established and staffed. Initial budgets will have to be prepared. GLC staff will have to be individually and collectively identified before deciding who will be transferred, and to where, and who will get the sack. GLC staff will have to be transferred to a number of new bodies. New office accommodation will have to be found. It will have to be rented or purchased within six months if the Government are determined to go ahead with their plan to sell off county hall.
  Local authorities are computer-oriented. All the files, computer programmes, information systems, legal records and the rest of the paraphernalia will have to be made compatible with all the new authorities' systems. Those of us who deal with local authorities from day to day are constantly frustrated by the way in which the system is bureaucratically operated, and we are even more concerned about what will happen when we have the change that the Government propose. The Government are proposing to push through the abolition Bill without any
  148
  time for a real examination of the practical problems. That is a recipe for chaos, confusion, disruption and bureaucratic muddle.
  It is my view that the abolition Bill will not make local government simpler in the metropolitan areas and the Greater London area. In fact, it will have the reverse effect and will be a step in the wrong direction. That view is endorsed by both parties in the alliance. There is an important case for simplifying the local government system.
  There is no evidence that what is being proposed will make councils more accountable to electors. The Bill will have the reverse effect because of the indirect nature of many of the joint boards and committees that will be involved. The Government's proposals will not stop the erosion of power and the steady drift of power away from town and county halls to central Government in Whitehall. In fact, the Government's proposals will accelerate that trend.
  Lastly, there is still no sign that the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties will lead to any significant financial savings. On that basis, as on all others, we in the alliance will oppose the abolition Bill as vigorously as we contested the paving Bill in the previous Session.
  5.22 pm
  Mr. Patrick Ground: As a new member of this place of only just over a year's standing I find it curious that we should be discussing for the first time what the Government propose should take the place of the existing local government institutions in Greater London and the metropolitan counties. In effect, this debate is the first occasion on which Parliament has had the opportunity to discuss the Government's proposals.
  On Second Reading of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, as it then was, I complained that we were being asked to abolish elections without even knowing what the Government proposed should replace the GLC and the metropolitan counties. We now have the opportunity to discuss the Government's proposals, and we do so at a time when the ink is nearly dry on the Bill which is to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties. I ask the Government to take notice of the opinions that are expressed in this place. Many Members have considerable experience of local government and the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) is one of them. I hope that the Government will listen to the comments that are expressed in the Chamber on their proposals and be willing to modify them.
  During our debates on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill some of us voted in the middle of the night on various amendments and some of my hon. Friends and I found that Ministers objected to a number of our proposals. There was a handful of us in that position. The Government took no notice of our submissions until they were reinforced by a vote in another place. At that stage they made a complete turn-around and accepted them.
  I urge the Ministers who are responsible for the abolition Bill to listen to the experience of this place when we come to discuss the Government's proposals following the introduction of the Bill. It should be borne in mind that the proposals were set out for the first time in a document which was published at the end of July. I do not accept the argument of the hon. Member for Woolwich that there has been deception. It is plain from reading the July document

  149
  that there are many functions, tasks and powers which the Government accept cannot be transferred to boroughs and which are not being transferred to boroughs. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's claim that the effect of the proposals will be the taking by central Government of local government powers.
  It is said that the object of the Government's proposals is to introduce streamlining. I accept that some streamlining could be effected by transferring functions which could be carried out by boroughs to the boroughs from the county councils. However, it makes nonsense of the concept of streamlining to transfer functions which cannot be carried out by individual boroughs and which are now being carried out by one body. Such functions should not be transferred to a mass of different bodies and authorities, some of them unelected and some of them established for completely different purposes. The object of streamlining will not be achieved by the proposals and the net result will be much more complicated residual powers than at present. In these respects the new proposals will lead to a system that is worse than the present one.
  The Government have still not explained why they believe that the proposals will lead to reduced public expenditure. I have consistently supported the Government by voting for rate capping and other measures to control and limit public expenditure in central Government and local government. I support the Government's objective to control public expenditure but their abolition proposals will not achieve their objective. There is no evidence in the July document that they will lessen public expenditure or make it easier to control. Indeed, experience demonstrates that the opposite is the case.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) referred to the reorganisation of the National Health Service and the taking of powers from local authorities by the implementation of a previous Labour Government's proposals. Those proposals appeared in a Green Paper at the end of the 1960s. It was suggested that they would lead to possible savings in public expenditure.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My hon. Friend is misquoting me. I referred to the creation of the NHS in 1946 and the measures which led to the London county council becoming the GLC.
  Mr. Ground: I accept that correction but I do not think that my hon. Friend would say that those measures led to any great savings in public expenditure. Powers were removed from local authorities in the early 1970s by the proposals of a Labour Government but that led to no financial savings. It was argued then that streamlining would lead to savings and so the concept is not new to the present Government. The moves that took place in the early 1970s did not lead to the economies desired at the time. The Water Act 1973 has led to a substantial increase in expenditure rather than a reduction of public expenditure.
  The Government's planning proposals represent an advance upon the proposals set out in the original White Paper. The idea of having a separate structure plan for every London borough was nonsense and has been abandoned. There is great force in the point made by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that, while recognising the need for strategic planning in London, the
  150
  role of strategic planning, which has been the responsibility of the GLC, has, in paragraph 2.2.3 of the Department of the Environment document, expressly been taken over by the Secretary of State. If the Government are sincere—I am prepared to accept that they are—in their wish to keep powers within local authorities, arid if the intention to take power centrally is not the objective of the legislation, then plainly further consideration of the planning proposals will be necessary.
  The proposal to make the body responsible for historic buildings also responsible for conservation areas, as mentioned in paragraph 2.16.2, seems to be an extraordinary extension of the powers of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. The designation and protection of conservation areas is a normal function of a local authority, and it is surely a more appropriate function to be carried out by an elected authority rather than an appointed authority such as the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. I hope that I have understood the paragraph correctly—with its mass of semi-colons it is very difficult to understand—but that appears to be its meaning.
  I think that the Government are being honest about the traffic difficulties. In the document produced by the Department of Transport, that Department is even more honest about the difficulties than is the Department of the Environment. It is plainly recognised that the work that the GLC is now doing will, in a substantial measure, have to be taken over by centrally organised initiatives, with a substantial role for central Government.
  With regard to traffic management, it is specifically said in the document that borough and district councils will be given a statutory duty to consult other councils whose areas may be affected by their proposals for traffic management. It is also said that where any dispute cannot be settled by the parties themselves, the Secretary of State's consent will be needed before the proposal can go ahead.
  It is recognised that there will be about 500 miles of roads in Greater London in regard to which traffic management policies will need to be considered on a comprehensive basis. That is a clear indication that the role and responsibility of the strategic authorities is not being passed to the boroughs. It shows the need for a new single body at least to carry out the residual powers which are not being delegated to the boroughs. It is not satisfactory that those powers should be taken over by joint boards or by non-elected bodies set up for different purposes. The better course would be to have a co-ordinating body, which is able to carry out the residual functions that are not delegated to the boroughs. As we have not yet invented a better method of doing it, I suggest that the co-ordinating body should be an elected one.
  The experience of all the people I know who have served on joint boards or inter-borough committees —non-elected bodies to which people are nominated by local authorities—is that they are the most difficult bodies to run efficiently and well. Any hon. Member with any experience of local government will recognise the truth of that statement.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member has mentioned something that is most significant to his own Front Bench. Will he agree that the very reason why the directly elected London county council was set up in 1889 was to replace the indirectly elected Metropolitan Board of Works in

  151
  London, and that the Government are now proposing to take us back to the structure that prevailed in London prior to 1889?
  Mr. Ground: There were also other reasons, such as fear of corruption and abuse in bodies that were not directly elected and directly responsible. I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman said.
  There are many things wrong with the local government system, but they will be made considerably worse if what is proposed is made the normal way of dealing with functions left over from the reorganisation.
  I ask the Government to listen to those within our party and outside it who are urging the need for a residual elected body to carry out the necessary functions openly and in a far more efficient way than any joint board or nominated committee could possibly do it. Such a residual body could also carry out the functions more economically, in a more cost-conscious way, and with a better sense of balanced priorities.
  I find it extraordinary that the Government have accepted the case for direct elections to ILEA, for not transferring any of the school functions to boroughs, and have accepted the case for the permanence of ILEA. That is a very odd position by any criteria. I know that the new Minister of State had views about the disbanding of ILEA, and whether the powers could be transferred to local authorities. He should be encouraged to look at the question again and at the whole structure of education in London. Whatever the Government's feelings about the financial irresponsibility of the GLC, ILEA has at least been in contact with elected members who had to make some judgment of financial priorities over a range of services. An elected ILEA, with the sole responsibility for education, could be an even bigger headache to the ratepayers of London than an ILEA in close cahoots with an elected authority.
  I support what the hon. Member for Woolwich said about the desirability of reviewing the structure of local government. Obviously, it cannot be done before the Bill is passed, but I urge the Government, as part of their posture, to review the operation of the boroughs. There are statutory ways of doing it. It is time that it was done, because they were set up in London 20 years ago and have not worked out as well as was hoped. When they were formed, it was hoped that decisions could be taken by members on policy, that members would remain active in their work, gain experience and be able to delegate the day-to-day running of the council to officers while remaining in touch with their electors. If one looks at the operation of any London borough—I am sure that it is true of many district councils—one sees that that has not worked out. The burden of being a London borough councillor is far greater than was anticipated in 1963. There has been a complete change in the type, and the professional and business background of people becoming councillors. There are many people who do nothing else but serve as councillors. That is not what was intended. It is questionable whether they have operated as effectively or as efficiently as was hoped.
  Therefore, it is particularly important, when we are thrusting more powers upon the London boroughs, that we should look at the way in which those boroughs operate
  152
  and see whether any improvements can be made in the way in which they operate and in which persons are attracted to the task of being councillors.
  For those reasons I very much hope that the Government will look at those suggestions as well as those made by other hon. Members so that there can be discussion of the proposals rather than the locked-in confrontation in the debates that we had on the previous Bill.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Allan Roberts: I agree with some of the remarks made by Conservative Members. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground), who put his case sincerely and obviously spoke from great knowledge of local government, especially in the London area. I agreed with most of what he said.
  I should like to refer specifically to two sentences in the Gracious Speech. The first is:
  "Legislation will be introduced for the better protection of food and the environment."
  I should like some undertakings from Ministers in respect of what that means. Secondly, I should like to refer to the words
  "Other measures will be laid before you."
  That has a most ominous ring, and I should like some guidance on it.
  Before referring to those two aspects of the Gracious Speech, I should like to make some observations on other issues that have been raised in the debate. The Secretary of State for the Environment referred to the privatisation of refuse collection. If he had given way to me I would have asked him to congratulate the Conservative-controlled Sefton metropolitan district council on going back on its original proposal to privatise its refuse collection. It received the lowest quotation from Grandmet, so it visited the London borough of Wandsworth to see the refuse collection service — or lack of service—provided there by Grandmet. Much is made of adhering to the law, but the council found the refuse collectors in Wandsworth breaking the law. They left vehicles with their engines running and unattended because that was the only way that they could collect the refuse according to the tender that they had submitted. The Conservative council in Sefton worked out that it would need not dustmen but supermen to collect the refuse if it accepted that tender, so it rightly rejected it, because the direct works system in that local authority, which has been considered Right-wing up to now, was considered to be effective and efficient. I should like to congratulate Sefton council even if the Secretary of State is not here to do so.
  There is an argument about local government suddenly becoming so different in character—becoming political and spending money unwisely — that it justifies rate capping, central control and the abolition of councils that are behaving in that wicked manner. That argument is absolute nonsense. I have been in politics since I was 15 or 16. I was in local government and chaired the housing committee in the city of Manchester. I saw the city when it was Conservative-controlled. I saw the city of Liverpool when the Liberal-Tory alliance controlled it. There has always been politics in local government. There have always been political decisions and political propaganda campaigns run by local authorities.
  The Secretary of State talks about councils spending money frivolously. When I first entered local government,

  153
  local authority after local authority—Tory or Labour-controlled—spent fortunes on conferences, receptions, junkets and all sorts of things. I remember Tony Crosland's famous speech when he said, "The party's over." It was made at Manchester town hall while he was tucking into an eight-course meal, and there were about 400 people there. All that has gone now. It is said that so-called Left-wing Labour councils spend money frivolously, but they have cut out all that nonsense in most cases. They are not wasting the ratepayers' money in such a way, although Conservative councils still do just that. Therefore, if the Government get down to that level and argue in support of massive proposals such as the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC, we can reply in kind.
  With regard to breaking the law, the great tragedy is that the Government are putting law-abiding citizens, many of whom have dedicated their lives to serving their fellow men and women, in a position in which they either break the statute law that requires services to be provided or defy the rate capping legislation. They are in a "Catch 22" situation.
  When Liverpool city council was run by the Liberals and the Tories, they broke the law. They kept illegal lists of handicapped and disabled people who were waiting for telephones and adaptations. All that was illegal. Of course, present Ministers did not intervene. It was a Labour law that was being broken — the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.
  John Hamilton, the leader of Liverpool city council, a retired school teacher and justice of the peace, has never broken the law in his life, but now, because he wants to defend services to the elderly and the disabled and to protect education for children, he is being branded as a criminal by the laws that the Government are passing. What a state we are getting in, with central control of local authorities and legislation that forces the people in society who want to protect those in most need to face the dilemma of breaking the law. At the same time, unemployment is rising and it seems that lawlessness is not being dealt with effectively in the streets of Liverpool and Bootle, my constituency. Hard drug-taking seems to be increasing, which is a serious problem, yet we are told that the real criminals are people who want to defend services for those in greatest need. That is the society that the Government are creating.
  In the Queen's Speech there is a suggestion that there will be legislation to protect the environment. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), I hope that there will be legislation to deal with the problem of acid rain. The Select Committee on the Environment has reported. We have not yet had the Government's response and a date has not been announced for a debate on that response and on the report itself.
  I hope that the Government will change their attitude towards action on that issue and will not continue to mouth propaganda that seems to come from the Central Electricity Generating Board. The Select Committee's report shows that the weight of evidence is overwhelming. Emissions of sulphur from power stations and of nitrogen oxide from motor cars, power stations and industry are causing damage to rivers, lakes and forests not only in Scandinavia and West Germany but in this country. There have been reductions in sulphur and nitrogen oxide
  154
  emissions in this country over the past few years, but we are still one of the biggest emitters in Europe, if not the biggest emitter, except for the Soviet Union.
  If we wait for the conclusive proof which the CEGB—and, up to now, the Government—have said they want before they will take action, it may be too late. The damage done to lakes and forests in Scandinavia and to forests in West Germany should warn us that the cumulative build-up of emissions of sulphur and nitrogen will damage our environment. Damage is already being done, and the process will accelerate. We do not have the conclusive proof that the CEGB demands, but we have evidence similar to that which existed when we first began to realise that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer. Even if the evidence is not scientifically conclusive, it is overwhelming. Action must be taken and I hope that the Government will take it.
  I believe that the CEGB figures are on the high side. The board suggests an increase of 10 to 15 per cent in electricity charges over 10 years to retrofit all fossil fuel power stations. That means an increase of a maximum of 1 to 1·5 per cent. a year to save our environment, when electricity charges have risen by over 50 per cent. in the past four years. One must look at the problem in perspective. We must save British lakes, rivers and forests before they are damaged as the European and Scandinavian forests have been.
  I am worried about the phrase
  "Other measures will be laid before you."
  At the Conservative party conference this year the Minister for Housing and Construction announced that new legislation was planned for the private rented housing sector. There is no mention of such legislation in the Queen's Speech. Is it included in the phrase "other measures" or has the idea been dropped? I fear that legislation by a Conservative Government in the private rented sector would involve an attempt to undermine even further the security of tenants who rent from private landlords, and another attempt to bolster the private rented sector.
  Those who receive the worst treatment in housing terms are those who rent from private landlords. We do not need legislation to weaken the security and the rights of private tenants in an attempt to revitalise the private rented sector, which will inevitably die anyway. We need legislation to provide more security, to get rid of bogus holiday lets, to deal with the bed and breakfast hotel scandals and to end the use of licences to avoid giving security to those who rent from a private landlord. The worst housing conditions are concentrated in the private rented sector. There are severe problems of disrepair. There is much harassment, many illegal evictions, and rents are high. If any legislation is in view, I hope that it will be designed to protect the tenant rather than further to undermine his position. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the promise made to the party conference has been dropped or whether there is to be another attack on those in the greatest housing need.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland has said, the Secretary of State for the Environment failed to make any mention of the housing crisis which is developing apace. By the time of the next election, we shall be facing a housing crisis of 1945 proportions. The issue of the sale of council houses will have disappeard as a vote winner for the Conservatives or a vote loser for us—if that is what it was. One cannot oppose what has already been

  155
  done and, in any case, with the lengthening waiting lists and other problems, the housing crisis will make housing a priority issue in the next general election. That can only benefit the Labour party, and make plain the need for the policies that we will suggest to deal with it.
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman says that what is done is done. Is the Labour party withdrawing its threat to force council tenants who have brought their homes to sell them back to the council?
  Mr. Roberts: There never was such a threat. The Conservatives were guilty of amazing misrepresentations during the general election, on the doorsteps and elsewhere, about the Labour party's attitude to the sale of council houses. It is said that we lost votes over the issue, and that, because of it, many people voted for the alliance rather than for us. However, the policy on the sale of council housing in the alliance manifesto was exactly the same as that of the Labour party. Our position has always been the same as that of the Liberals and the Social Democrats. We are in favour of local authorities determining for themselves, as democratically elected bodies, whether they sell council housing.
  If all the best houses have been sold off after nine to 10 years of council house sales, and if the housing crisis has worsened and waiting lists have lengthened, we shall be in a completely new ball game. The promises of the Labour party to help those in housing need will be seen to be far more relevant than any gimmicks that the Conservatives may use, in the run-up to the next general election, to bolster the figures for houses sold.
  The Minister declined to go into any details about the possibility of further cuts in the housing budget. Recent newspaper reports have suggested that the Treasury wants cuts of £600 million or more in housing investment in the next financial year. That would be a disaster. It would drastically affect the construction programmes of both the local authorities and the housing associations—although the local authorities are likely to be worst hit. Councils and housing associations are committed to spending on work in progress. New work planned for next year would, therefore, be hard hit. It has been suggested that the number of council homes started could fall by 20,000. Improvement grants would probably dry up completely. In my constituency there are no improvement grants anyway and no new capital expenditure on housing, because the Conservative Sefton council has interpreted the Minister's request for voluntary restraint as a request for a moratorium, even though the Minister said that it was not. If there is a cut of £600 million, home owners will certainly not be able to get improvement grants. That will prove that Conservatives are not—as they claim to be—the supporters of the home owner.
  One must consider the proposed cuts in terms of the present housing situation. In 1983 there was a total waiting list of 1·2 million—the highest total ever. There was a transfer list of nearly 600,000. An analysis by Shelter shows that in many areas the reduction in council house building is reducing the number of lettings available to dangerously low levels. In England alone, 78,000 households were accepted by local councils as homeless in 1983, compared with 53,000 in 1978. In London, Shelter found that over 2,000 homeless families were
  156
  living in bed and breakfast hotels on a temporary basis last summer. The cost of such accommodation in London alone is estimated at £12 million a year—a sum which would be enough to pay off loan charges on 3,000 houses at an estimated cost of £30,000 each.
  According to the Government's own housing conditions survey, 1·1 million houses in England were unfit for human habitation in 1981. Nearly a million homes lacked one or more basic amenities. Nearly 4 million homes needed repairs which would cost more than £2,500—a figure which had risen by over 20 per cent. in five years. That is the situation before the consequences of the £600 million cut mooted by the Treasury are felt. The greatest number of homes needing major repairs were in the owner-occupied sector. No money or grants for them are coming from the Government.
  The housing stock is aging. According to estimates, in 1971 1·8 million homes were over 100 years old. By the turn of the century, that number will have risen to 4·3 million. That points to an increasing demand for repair and improvement, and hence an increase, not a reduction, in the moneys available. That is not just council housing, it is money provided through local authorities to housing associations and owner-occupiers.
  The Housing Defects Act 1984, which the Government are planning to bring into operation on 1 December, designates as defective 170,000 homes built using precast reinforced concrete. Cuts will undermine efforts to deal with the problem in those homes, which the Government have recognised. In addition, the Minister for Housing and Construction announced just two weeks ago that all houses and flats built using large panel systems similar to Ronan Point are to be investigated for possible defects. Defects in some large panel types, for example Bison, have already been admitted. Shelter has estimated that that could mean that upwards of 100,000 dwellings could need repair or demolition. Cuts will clearly undermine repair programmes and in extreme cases there will be a possible risk to safety.
  Cuts are economically unsound. There is no sound economic logic for cutting further or for not expanding the housing investment programme. The Treasury is insisting on cuts because, contrary to most accepted accounting conventions, it treats borrowing for capital spending as the same as borrowing for current spending. It is Treasury nonsense, but that is what it does with the public sector. In other words, the Treasury does not recognise capital investment. Its approach to spending on housing has been illustrated as follows—if someone buys a house with a £20,000 mortgage and pays £2,000 in mortgage repayments during the first year after purchase, any sensible person would say that during that year a liability of £20,000 has been created and payments of £2,000 have been made. The Treasury says that £22,000 has been spent, and that there must be further cuts. It does not apply the same logic to the private sector, the owner-occupier, the bank or the insurance company.
  Construction is estimated to be one of the cheapest ways in which public spending can create jobs. For every £100 million invested in house building and home repair work, up to £175 million returns to the Exchequer by way of increased payments of taxes and reduced social security payments. Looking at that another way, cutting £600 million from the housing investment budget could mean a net saving to the Treasury — because of the unemployment created—of as little as £150 million.

  157
  I ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to fight his corner to obtain some money for investment in capital expenditure on housing so that we can build houses for the homeless and for those in most need, and provide jobs for people who work in the construction industry.
  If the Secretary of State wants to find any savings on houses, and if he is forced by the Treasury—because most of the local government and housing legislation we have from the Department of the Environment is Treasury legislation rather than local government or housing legislation—to find some money, let him turn back on the Treasury and consider the amount of money that is given in income tax relief to owner-occupiers at the higher end of the scale who are buying large houses.
  We have a system of housing subsidy based on income tax relief on the interest paid on the mortgage which is founded on the unassailable British principle that the richer one is the more help one needs with housing. If we study the figures, we find that they are amazing. The latest year for which comprehensive figures are available is 1983–84. The total value of mortgage interest tax relief amounted to £2,710 million, representing £400 subsidy per mortgagor receiving tax relief. The total council house subsidy, including Exchequer subsidies and net rate fund contributions to local authority housing revenue accounts in the same year came to £1,091, million representing only £188 per local authority dwelling.
  I am not opposed to income tax relief for the average mortgagor but I support equal treatment for everyone in every form of tenure in terms of Government financial assistance and subsidy. If further cuts have to be made, perhaps some of the money can be taken from the top end of the owner-occupier market. I hope that the Minister will consider that, rather than a further attack on local authority and housing association subsidies and house building programmes.
  I am sure that the gap that exists between subsidies that the owner-occupier and the council tenant receive will have widened even further with higher interest rates in 1984–85 and decreased Exchequer subsidies and rate fund contributions to local authority housing accounts.
  Although the reply will be made by the Secretary of State for Transport, I hope that it will cover some of the omissions in the Queen's Speech and in the speech of the Secretary of State for the Environment when he opened the debate.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I remind the House of what I said earlier? Many hon. Members wish to take part today and it would be helpful if speeches were not over-long.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: In welcoming the Gracious Speech, I shall address myself to two specific matters. On the face of it, the abolition Bill may not appear to affect or interest a Member such as myself representing a district within a shire county. However, I welcome it for two reasons. First, it recognises the principle of a single-tier structure for local government, eliminating the duplication entrenched in a two-tier format, and that I heartily applaud. Both sides of the House, if pressed — the spokesman for the alliance agreed—would opt for the simplest system closest to the electorate affected.
  158
  Secondly, although it does not say so, the Queen's Speech recognises that the House got it wrong in the early 1970s. The Conservative party was in government at that time, but although all parties were agreed that something ought to be done, few people could agree on what. It is a little like the controversy over rates.
  It seems sad that we politicians find it hard ever to say that we were wrong. There is no shame in doing so. In industry, the top people are those who can quickly recognise a wrong turn and respond accordingly I have raised the matter because of the hypocrisy of the Labour party in general and in our city of Nottingham in particular. That Labour party, using its control of our city council, seeks to support in every possible way, the Labour party's campaign to retain the upper tier of local government in the metropolitan areas while it presses me and my two Nottingham colleagues to assist it in taking back its county borough powers lost in the same early-70s reorganisation. The Labour party is completely devoid of principles in this matter.
  The second issue is the White Paper on buses and what is said in the Gracious Speech about the direction that the Bill might follow. Much hysteria has been whipped up which, unless the Secretary of State has in mind that which was not in the White Paper, is completely unjustified, counter-productive, and in some cases rightly branded as unprofessional. Some of the papers seem to be saying, "Damn the public; our empires are at stake."
  The Queen's Speech stated:
  "A Bill will be introduced to increase competition in the provision of local bus services in Great Britain and to transfer to the private sector the operations of the National Bus Company."
  I support the floating of the National Bus Company in the hope that the Minister intends, first, that it should be broken up, and secondly, that any steps to further competition in the urban areas, such as Nottingham, will not predate that break-up or its privatisation.
  Secondly, in an attempt to introduce competition for the greater benefit of a greater number of passengers—the passengers must surely be our prime concern — the Secretary of State will seek to ensure that such competition is fair and equitable and that proper public protection will be adequately provided and enforced. To achieve that, I believe that a new wholly-owned municipal PLC must be able to operate in a manner no more commercially constrained than existing or future limited or PLC operators. It should not be bound by local government or public sector financial control.
  I believe that the White Paper uses the term "deregulation" — wrongly, in my view, because it actually means a different, fairer and, one hopes, more growth-oriented form of regulation. People do not want what are emotively described as cowboys or pirates with unsafe vehicles whose drivers do not meet the required standards—for example, in the number of hours worked per day—bringing a short-term, superficial gain which may then disappear, leaving people worse off. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will follow the recommendations in the White Paper and substitute quality control for quantity control. The quantity aspect will then look after itself. That quality control will require not just legal teeth but administrative enforceability. I hope that the Bill will not be vague about that.
  If the new licensing authority is to concentrate on quality and enforcement, I hope that there will be a recording or co-ordinating body—perhaps a county or

  159
  regional group of districts—because if local authorities are to respond as the White Paper suggests to social route provision and support, someone needs to know who is doing what, where and when.
  I conclude by saying, even in the absence of the Leader of the Opposition, that I am one of those ordinary folk who, after a stint in local government, have found themselves privileged to be in this place. That stint in local government seems to have given this newcomer and many others a sounder base for their views than all the platitudes that the right hon. Gentleman's Celtic charm can dream up.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: Abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties will surely be the most contentious issue of this Parliament, yet it rates just 16 words in the Queen's Speech. It received a few more in the Conservative manifesto of 1983, but even adding them all together those few words are devoid of both principle and intellect and, I believe, typify the Government's contempt for local democracy.
  We are about to witness a fundamental change in the structure of local government, not as the result of a Royal Commission studying the situation for some years, as preceded the setting up of the GLC in 1964, nor as the result of a distinguished commission such as that which preceded the setting up of the metropolitan counties in 1972, but as the result of party political dogma, especially on the part of the Prime Minister. Abolition of the GLC was conceived by the Prime Minister in malice and spite and Is now being nourished on ignorance and paranoia.
  The Bill to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties will be an ugly, brutish creature which I believe will ultimately consume its own creators. Indeed, abolition has already guaranteed the political end of the Secretary of State for the Environment — the Tory party's equivalent of the vicar of Bray. He now holds office merely because his immediate removal would be an admission of defeat by the Prime Minister, but everyone in the House recognises that he is finished. Indeed, he has had to suffer the ultimate insult and indignity of someone else being brought in to do the job in which he has conspicuously failed. That person is the new Minister for Local Government, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). His quaintly-named constituency leads one to think of him as the mole of Marsham street. Thinking of "The Wind in the Willows", I wondered who was Ratty—probably they all are by now, in view of the job that they are expected to do. If one is permitted to mix fairy tales, there is certainly no doubt as to who would be the Mad Hatter.
  The Minister for Local Government has a reputation for being clever and rather smooth. I am sure that he would make the same assessment of himself. In 1977, before doing a swift bunk out of London to represent Mole Valley, he edited an interesting pamphlet. Its title, "Maybe it's because we are Londoners", was scarcely original but the pamphlet contained views which make very interesting reading today. Indeed, when I discussed it with Ken Livingstone the other day—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name dropping."] Yes, I believe in a bit of name dropping from time to time. Mr. Livingstone said that the Minister's
  160
  pamphlet read rather like the GLC manifesto in 1981, as indeed it does. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the foresight that he used to have.
  On planning, the right hon. Gentleman wrote in 1977:
  "It will be generally agreed that Greater London, an area of some 610 square miles containing seven million people, must continue to be more than an agglomeration of 32 boroughs with different degrees of urban disease."
  That was in the GLC manifesto and we say "Hear, hear" to that. He continued:
  "The strategic role of the GLC should be enhanced".
  That view was shared by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
  On transport, the new Minister for Local Government wrote:
  "The real benefits of the transport system can only be obtained by using the full range of facilities in a co-ordinated way. There is a tremendous job of work to be done in this area by County Hall."
  He further stated:
  "The policy of restraining heavy lorries should be extended as quickly as possible".
  The Secretary of State for Transport should think about that before suggesting that the GLC is merely trying to clog up London. The Minister for Local Government expressed that view in 1977 and the lorry ban was included in the 1981 GLC manifesto.
  Mr. Richard Tracey: The hon. Gentleman may recall that the same pamphlet suggested that the Inner London education authority should be abolished. Does he agree with that, too?
  Mr. Banks: I shall be coming to that, as it shows how inconsistent the Minister is.
  In 1977, the right hon. Gentleman even had a good word for cyclists. He wrote:
  "It is recommended that a purposeful campaign is mounted to make life safer and easier for them. Both the GLC and the boroughs should provide a proper pattern of cycle lanes and paths in inner and outer London."
  That, too, was in the GLC manifesto. Indeed, cyclists and cycle lanes will be major casualties if the GLC is abolished.
  On housing, the new Minister said:
  "The GLC should excercise strategic control only. Zoning densities, plot ratios and high buildings should remain GLC responsibilities."
  He called for the GLC to remain responsible for regional parks such as Lea valley, Colne valley, the M4 linear, and Hampstead heath.
  In 1977 the Minister even described the City of London as an anomaly in the pattern of London's local government. Very few Labour Members would disagree with that. Indeed, the Conservatives should remember that the wind of abolition can blow in many directions. I trust that the next Labour Government will not only abolish the City of London as the anomaly that the Minister recognised it to be but will talk about true unitary local government and get rid of the shire counties, as consistency would demand if the metropolitan authorities are abolished.
  The Minister went on to call for the GLC to have a role in tourism, race relations, employment and training—all of which it now does and for which it is bitterly criticised by Conservative Members.
  The Minister's best contribution was the section on the relationship between Whitehall and county hall. He said:
  "In recent years there has been increased direction by central Government over local government. Far from the GLC being

  161
  allowed greater independence Whitehall has, quite wrongly, interfered more and more with the activities of County Hall. The Government failed to approve the GLDP for too long, leaving a continuing vacuum in both strategic and local planning. It is impossible to have a proper strategic authority in Greater London without a change of attitude in Whitehall."
  Why does the Minister appear to disagree with what he said then? What has changed his mind in seven years? What has changed the minds of the authors of the pamphlet "Maybe it's because we are Londoners" — the hon. Members for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) and for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend)? Perhaps the real hon. Member for Mole Valley will stand up.
  In 1977 the Minister called for the dismantling of the Inner London education authority. That is totally at variance with present Government policy. Having read what the Minister wrote in 1977, I cannot believe now that he is insufficiently intelligent to see that the abolition of the GLC makes no sense in economic, social or local government terms. It makes no sense that of all the problems that we face — mass unemployment, the destruction of our manufacturing base and the coal dispute in its ninth month—the Government seek to tie up this Session with an absurd, irrelevant piece of legislation to abolish the GLC and metropolitan county councils. All thinking hon. Members must realise that.
  The matter is not even popular among the electorate—at least the London electorate. Recent opinion polls show that 74 per cent. of Londoners are opposed to the abolition. In 1983 the Prime Minister no doubt thought that the abolition would be the domestic equivalent of the Falklands factor, but a GLC factor is now much in evidence in London politics. The Tory party is losing council by-elections all the time, if not to the Labour party, then to the alliance. The GLC factor was apparent in the London results in the recent European Community elections. It is also seen in the general political attitudes of Londoners. The most recent MORI poll showed that, although the Labour party was, regrettably, 6 per cent. behind the Tory party in the country as a whole, it was 13 per cent. ahead in London. That was confirmed by a later Harris poll that showed the Labour party 18 per cent. ahead of the Tory party in London. If that were translated at a general election, 33 London Tory Members would lose their seats. In other words, the Government through its abolition policy will be signing the political death warrant for those hon. Members — but that in itself is not something with which I would disagree.
  The Minister said that there would be savings. Where are they to come from? In the recent London debate between the new Minister for Local Government and the leader of the GLC, the Minister said that savings figures would be produced in two weeks, but they are still awaited. The Government must prove their point. The House is entitled to know what the savings will be and how such figures were reached. Our calculations at county hall show that savings can be achieved only by cutting services. The Government must come clean. If services are maintained after abolition, 25 of the 32 London boroughs will pay higher rates.
  In that same debate the Minister said that power would be returned to the boroughs. He should brush up his knowledge of London local government. The powers that he is proposing to pass to the London boroughs have never previously been exercised by them. The Herbert
  162
  Commission report of 1960 examined the devolution of all possible powers to the boroughs, made some recommendations, and left a core strategic role to the GLC which has existed to the present day.
  The Minister also said that £535 million from GLC services would pass to the boroughs. He relies on a bold assertion and makes no attempt to back it up with facts. We want his evidence. If he speaks in the debate, I should be interested to know how he arrived at the figure. My calculation shows that 15·7 per cent. of ILEA 1984–85 net expenditure will be devolved to the boroughs. If ILEA is excluded from that calculation, 30·9 per cent. of the GLC 1984–85 net expenditure will go to the boroughs—just one third of the services' figure in monetary value terms. I have the figures worked out, because county hall has nothing to hide. The Government must put their facts before Londoners and the House.
  It is a fact that the overwhelming bulk of submissions in response to "Streamlining the Cities" were opposed to the Government's proposals. It is a fact that most informed opinion inside and outside local government in the private and public sectors is against abolition. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of Londoners are opposed to abolition. Who, then, is in favour of abolition except for the Prime Minister and the unthinking majority on the Tory Benches?
  The abolition issue will not end either in this House or in the other place. It will run right through the 1986 London borough elections. It will result in massive gains for the Labour party and the destruction of the Conservative party in London local government. There is no chance that abolition will be achieved by 1986. Therefore, the chaos that will continue thereafter will run to the general election of 1987 or 1988. The right hon. Lady may not be for turning, but her environment Ministers are spinning like tops. They have all sacrificed their former well-held views, and none more obviously than the right hon. Member for Mole Valley. They have also sacrificed their self-respect and political credibility. That is all being done to save the right hon. Lady's face. All those who are honest know that abolition makes no sense in local government or economic terms.
  It is doubtful whether the promise to abolish the GLC actually won the general election for the Prime Minister. The abolition of the GLC will undoubtedly contribute significantly to the Prime Minister's defeat at the next general election. That is the GLC factor, and Tory Members, especially those who represent London constituencies, should think carefully about that before they vote for their own political extinction.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: I shall not follow the road of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) because I am one ratepayer in the Greater London council area who wholly approves of its abolition. I pay as high rates for my modest flat in Kennington as I do for my reasonably-sized house in Bournemouth. If there is one cause of high unemployment in London — the figure for unemployment no longer appears on county hall—it is high rates. That is one good reason why the GLC should be abolished. It has proved itself to be irresponsible and unnecessary.
  I welcome everything in the Queen's Speech. Clearly the proposals represent another heavy programme of legislation about which my hon. Friend the Member for

  163
  Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) complained yesterday. Most of us have sympathy with his warning that the House and the Civil Service will once again be under strain because of it.
  The Government were elected to reverse the direction towards corporatism and state Socialism which previous Governments took during the 1960s and 1970s. Indeed, by 1979, one saw with alarm that, of the 10 preconditions suggested by Karl Marx as being necessary for the establishment of a Communist state, seven had already been satisfied in Britain. Labour Members should look at page 555 of volume 8 of the collected works of Karl Marx to check that list. To reverse the process requires much new legislation before the Government can assume a lower profile that will allow people to enjoy much more of what they earn without interference from the state. No Conservative Member could complain about that.
  Mr. Ridley: Why should we take any notice of an elderly imported German?
  Mr. Atkinson: Unfortunately, that elderly imported German was involved in the textile industry in the Manchester area, which has still to be revived.
  I welcome the broad reference in the Queen's Speech to the continued policy of privatisation, or more competition, as the Prime Minister likes to describe it. With most of our energy industries, the railways, steel, coal and shipbuilding still in state ownership, there is plenty of scope for denationalisation. The potential for the privatisation of the National Health Service remains almost completely unrealised. Unfortunately, there was no reference in the Queen's Speech to encouraging the demunicipalisation of local government services, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made some welcome references to that this afternoon.
  The welcome exception to that was the proposal to increase competition in local bus services. The White Paper on buses has aroused much opposition among some local authority bus operators and the unions. We now see much unjustified propaganda and misinformation which is reminiscent of the propaganda put out by the unions during the passage of the Telecommunications Act 1984, and which is designed to cause unnecessary concern and alarm especially to the elderly, who rely on their local bus services, particularly in outlying areas.
  In hindsight, it might have been preferable to have published a Green Paper—a consultation document—on the Government's proposals, or at least to have allowed more time for consultation than was allowed, with the publication of the White Paper at the end of July, just before not only the House but local councils went into recess. We must await the Bill to learn how existing bus services, which the private sector will not touch because they will never be profitable, will be protected. However, the White Paper states cearly that local authorities will be able to continue to subsidise services that would otherwise cease. That commitment in the White Paper has already been overlooked by local authorities and by the trade unions, which believe that their members will be affected.
  It is completely wrong to assert that a bus service will cease as a result of the proposals in the White Paper. It may take some years for the private sector to develop, because the present municipal bus monopolies discourage the participation of any tangible private sector expertise, but
  164
  no one should underestimate the ability of private enterprise to produce a range of practical and flexible services that will offer passengers a wide choice of routes at competitive prices which will no longer be a burden to ratepayers or to taxpayers.
  Until we try to put our bus services out to competition, we shall never know what the passenger will gain. I look forward to a revitalised local bus service, with new businesses and new jobs emerging as a result of the Government's proposals.
  Earlier I expressed my disappointment that there was no direct reference in the Queen's Speech to measures requiring local authorities to privatise their services, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State helped to put that right in his speech by promising action to secure more competition, with a consultation paper to come and a hint of legislation during the next Session. I wholeheartedly welcome that, because the potential for savings in local government costs through privatisation is great, although it remains largely unappreciated and unrealised, with the result that small businesses in Britain are missing out on exciting opportunities which their counterparts abroad have long enjoyed.
  Only about 31 councils from a total of 550 local authorities have contracted out some services. They have been restricted to refuse collection and to the cleaning of streets, public toilets and schools, although some authorities have shown a willingness to innovate by inviting tenders for services such as golf course management, grass cutting, pest control and school catering. Those examples have shown dramatic savings in existing costs, which have been passed on to the taxpayer. We often hear cited the example of the pioneering Southend borough council, which was the first to introduce the privatisation of refuse collection. As a result, it now saves £500,000 a year, which represents a ½p rate to Southend ratepayers. They enjoy a more efficient service, and the previous local authority employees are happier now with better working conditions, pay, holidays and job satisfaction.
  After nearly three years' experience of the handful of courageous Conservative councils that had the foresight and the guts to explore the advantages of competitive tendering, it is a public scandal that more than 90 per cent. of local authorities have done nothing in this respect. Had every refuse-collecting authority done what Southend did, the nation would be saving about £200 million a year. When one analyses the activities and functions of local government, there is little that cannot be franchised that is not already being done by local councils using private firms to supply municipal services under contract somewhere in the western world.
  I was delighted to learn that the Government are turning their attention to the demunicipalisation of local government as a matter of urgency. Perhaps as a first step my right hon. Friend will consider issuing a circular to all local authorities, similar to that sent to health authorities about a year ago, asking them to submit plans to seek competitive tenders for specified services and to explore the scope for others. There is no reason why such tenders should not be sought or submitted from European companies, because the European Community is about a common market in services as well as in goods.
  The Conservative councils that have not put their services to the test of competition stand to be condemned

  165
  by the Conservative party for ignoring the key element of our philosophy, which remains prominent in the legislation heralded by the Queen's Speech.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: I shall follow the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) in one respect, in that I wish to talk about issues other than the abolition of the metropolitan counties. That is not because I have no sympathy with London Members but because I have no personal interest in such abolition. However, I assure my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that during the long nights this winter I shall be trooping through the Lobby with them, because I support them in their fight to retain democracy. I am sure that they will be prepared to support hon. Members who represent other areas, particularly the depressed regions, when they fight for their democracy.
  As I understand it, my hon. Friends' opposition to the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties is based on the democratic argument that it is wrong to abolish a tier of local government because that removes democratic rights from the people who live and vote within those areas. An equally fatal and perhaps more insidious way of attacking democracy is the way in which the Government have approached local government generally. They have mounted a two-pronged attack. On the one hand they have enforced a whole range of new controls on local government, and on the other they have reduced resources to local councils, even though such resources are absolutely essential if those councils are to attempt to meet the needs of the people they represent. That two-pronged attack is at least as insidious in its effect on democracy.
  During the last three years, the Rhymney Valley local authority has lost £70,000 per 1,000 people in rate support grant. Those Conservative Members who represent more affluent areas may appreciate the problems which that local authority faces. In 1982–83, the Rhymney Valley district council received £66,000 per 1,000 people in rate support grant. The following year that was reduced to £56,570. In Wales as a whole, the amount went down from £277,671 to £285,811 per 1,000 people. That is not a reduction in cash terms, but when inflation is taken into account it is a very real drop.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) referred to the impact which capital expenditure on housing can have on employment. I am conscious of the impact which the reduction in capital expenditure has had on employment levels in Wales. In 1981–82, capital expenditure by Welsh local authorities was £249·7 million. In 1982–83 it was £349 million, and in 1983–84 it was £408 million. That is an increase in absolute terms, but when inflation and the increasing needs of our communities are taken into account, it is a serious reduction.
  In 1983–84, Rhymney Valley district council received £6,752,000 in cash grant from central Government. In 1984–85, that will go down to £5,731,000—a reduction of 15 per cent. That is the problem now faced by all local authorities, but the impact of such reductions falls particularly heavily on areas such as Wales, with its traditional problems such as unemployment.
  There is a twofold impact on local communities. Local councils are unable to meet the proper demands placed upon them by their communities. I intended to quote some
  166
  figures in respect of housing need in the valley which I represent. They were prepared by the local authority's chief housing officer, who sent me a copy of the housing strategy and investment programme. Other hon. Members will be aware that similar programmes are being drawn up in their own constituencies. One phrase leapt out of that strategy document. It stated:
  "it can only indicate the scale of the housing problems in the District and quantify the degree to which the Council will be unable to solve them unless there is a significant increase in the financial resources available".
  Local authorities are now saying, "We cannot even plan. We can do nothing but indicate the scale and nature of our problems. Unless central Government are prepared to ease the burden and make additional resources available, we can do nothing but quantify our own inability to meet our housing needs." That is the impact of this stranglehold on our communities.
  There is also an impact on employment opportunities and unemployment levels. My local authority area stretches from my constituency of Caerphilly northwards to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). In that small mining valley there are now only four pits left between us and not much else, yet 10,000 people are unemployed.
  Conservative Members talk about the need for investment and the generation of employment opportunities by new investment, entrepreneurs and the application of capitalism, but I wonder whether they understand what life is really like in valleys such as that. Do they really understand how destitute those communities are? Do they really understand that there is no prospect of investment coming in from outside under market forces and that only by the organisation of human endeavour, either by central Government or local government, will anything new come to our valleys?
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Are not many local authorities sitting like a dog in the manger on building land within their areas and denying it to private developers who would contribute to housing and employment, simply because those authorities want the right to build the houses themselves?
  Mr. Davies: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman fails to understand that I am not talking about dogma or about the application of an abstract philosophy but about the real problems of a real community. I assure the hon. Gentleman and all other hon. Members that anyone who wishes to embark on a construction programme in my valley will find land aplenty. The local authority's housing investment programme has identified the need for 500 new dwellings every year. We cannot attract private capital to the valley to build. That is the nature of our problem. I am not prepared to accept the dogmatic view of local authorities stifling enterprise or development for political reasons. That is utter nonsense. If the hon. Gentleman visited some areas of the country which faced real problems, he would begin to understand the human side of the tragedy which the Government are inflicting.
  In Rhymney Valley there is average male unemployment of 22 per cent. In the Pontlottyn employment exchange area, the figure is 42 per cent. When Conservative Members talk about Government investment, aid, expenditure and rate support grant, do they appreciate the impact on a small valley community of male

  167
  unemployment of between 42 per cent. and 44 per cent.? Do they understand how the wealth of a community is sucked out by unemployment of that sort?
  Mr. Wareing: Do they care?
  Mr. Davies: Indeed. Do they understand how the strength of a community is weakened? Do they understand how the health of individuals is adversely affected by unemployment of that sort? I suspect that they neither know, understand nor care, but in my local authority area people do understand and care.
  The area has an industrial development committee, with a part-time chairman, who incidentally works in the royal ordnance factory in Cardiff and will be lucky to have a job next year, as a result of the Government's privatisation programme. If the Secretary of State for Wales spent one tenth as much time in trying to get new investment and employment in Wales as that part-time chairman, we should have a much healthier economy in Rhymney Valley. However, the Government neither care nor understand.
  I contacted my county council to ask for some figures about youth unemployment in Mid-Glamorgan. In October 1984, there were 8,616 16 to 17-year-olds. Of those, 31 per cent. were staying in school, and 11 per cent. were going into further education. Some 40 per cent. were placed on the youth training scheme, 8 per cent. were wholly unemployed, and 5 per cent. were in employment. Some 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. were on special measures, or had left the district for an unknown destination.
  One could say that those figures were not too bad because, of the whole age group, only 45 per cent. are available for employment, so only 40 per cent. are out of work. However, if one excludes the 2,700 who remain in school or are on further education, there is an appalling figure of 80 per cent. unemployment. That is the real level of youth unemployment in that small mining valley. Eight out of 10 young people who leave school will not get a job.
  I know that some Conservative Members will say that there is the youth training scheme, which provides opportunities, and that if young people go into this scheme they will increase their employability because they will get new skills. However, it is no good providing skills if there are no jobs to use those skills. The figures from my valley show that only 30 per cent. of those who leave YTS will get a job, and that figure goes down to a tragic 20 per cent. in the Rhondda valley.
  My local authority wishes to do something about unemployment, and that is why it has an industrial development committee. That is why it goes to the Welsh Office, sends deputations to the Secretary of State for Wales, co-operates with the Land Authority for Wales and makes submissions to the Welsh Development Agency and applications for finance to clear derelict land. It builds new industrial estates and starter units. It co-operates to its utmost with the industry department of the Welsh Office. It publicises the area, by coming to London and having publicity stalls. It does all that it can to attract investment and to make sure that people understand the nature of the problem. What do the Government do? They cut the money available to the local authority.
  I do not wish to take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West. Conservative Members have spoken about frivolous expenditure and
  168
  extravaganzas and money that goes to support groups, and so on. My hon. Friend may argue that that expenditure is essential to the fabric of inner-city life, and I shall not disagree. However, nobody can accuse my authority, or any of the Welsh authorities struggling to exist, of extravagance. Least of all can anyone accuse them of being too highly paid.
  The new vogue idea is that we must accept wage cuts. I have dug out from the Welsh Office this month's publication of "Welsh Economic Trends" to see how Wales compares with every other region, in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There are eight regions for the purpose of economic indexation in England. In terms of GDP, Wales is worse off than any of the eight. It is worse off than Scotland, but marginally better off than Northern Ireland, with all the support that goes into that region. In terms of personal disposable income, we are a poorer region than every English region and than Scotland.
  If the Government's suggestion of a cure for unemployment is more unemployment, and if they think that the answer to our problem is wage cuts, I ask them how much poorer we have to become before we start to get richer. How much more unemployment do we have to have before we start to get new employment? How destitute do they want us to become? The message that the Government are giving to regions such as mine and to local authorities, through the Gracious Speech and the legislative programme that they have mapped out for the 12 months ahead, is one of destitution and unemployment.
  If any hon. Member is tempted to say that that is the price that we have to pay for being in a deprived region, and that the Government went to the country in 1983 and have a mandate because more people voted for them and there are more Tory Members of Parliament and it is their right to pass whatever legislation they wish, I can give them a little advice. I have here a quotation:
  "True democracy cannot just mean one man, one vote. It must mean also that our citizens see clearly the stake they hold in the stability and prosperity of our country."
  That is not Karl Marx, but the introduction to a CBI pamphlet called "A share in the action". If the Government will not accept criticism from their political enemies, they should at least be prepared to accept advice from their political friends. Unless they do so, the Government will store up a wealth of bitterness for the years ahead, and that bitterness will come crashing down on their heads.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Richard Tracey: I shall not presume to comment on what the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said about Wales, but I shall say something about the portion of the Gracious Speech that concerns my area of Greater London, and in particular my constituency of Surbiton. I do not imagine that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground), I shall receive applause from the Opposition Benches when I say that I very much welcome the part of the Gracious Speech that pledges the Government to the abolition of the Greater London council in this Session. We fought the election on that pledge and we received overwhelming support in London, where 56 of the 84 constituencies returned Conservative Members — a larger number than the Conservative party has ever won before.
  It is not before time that we are abolishing the GLC. I have a slight disagreement with the Government. I wish that we had brought this legislation forward in the last

  169
  Session. We might then have avoided all the complications and confusion of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act, and we might have cleaned up the whole matter by 1985 and spared the people and industry of London a further year of the GLC being able to tinker around with the affairs of London.
  We have heard something in his debate about percentages. One percentage that is being quoted is stuck up on a hoarding on the other side of the river. It claims that 74 per cent. of Londoners disagree with the Government and wish to retain the GLC. I wish that the hoarding included another percentage, and I wish that Labour Members would occasionally turn their minds to another percentage. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister talked yesterday about an 11 per cent. figure, but I have been told today that on a narrow interpretation, if one takes out such things as police spending, which is broadly considered local government spending, the GLC handles less than 10 per cent., in rough terms, of the local government spending in this great conurbation. If that is the case, it is clear, and should be spelt out clearly to the people of London, that the primary local government authority in the Greater London conurbation is the borough council. That was what was intended in the legislation in the early 1960s. It was the way that the urban commission intended it. Certainly there is no reason to believe that anything other than the borough councils are needed for the correct government of London.
  Mr. David Penhaligon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is also true that the Department of Health and Social Security spends vastly more than the Foreign Office but that that is not necessarily a reason for abolishing the Foreign Office?
  Mr. Tracey: The hon. Gentleman is making a rather abstruse point. He makes a bit of a habit of that, coming from a distant corner of our land. However, it is not relevant to local government in the Greater London conurbation. The fact is—it should be repeated time and again even if the GLC propagandists will not put it up on the front of their building—that the GLC manages less than 10 per cent. of local government spending in the conurbation.
  Since the general election last year people have been confused by the spending of £12 million of ratepayers' money on propaganda. I am not talking simply about the hoarding across the river. On practically every corner in London a hoarding has been put up by Mr. Livingstone and his propagandists in the GLC. The newspapers—The Times, the Daily Telegraph — have double-page spreads of propaganda paid for by ratepayers' money. A lot of brainwashing can be done with £12 million. It can have a great deal of influence on the sort of answers that a few people in London will give to opinion polls.
  Mr. Tony Banks: In fairness to the House, the hon. Gentleman should not pluck figures from the air. There is no basis in fact for a figure of £12 million. I shall gladly admit to the figure of £6 million in the present financial year. How much are the Government spending on advertising their services through different Departments, much of which we would consider to be party political propaganda? That figure is about £100 million. How much is the Department of the Environment spending on the leaflet that it is distributing through all the rate-capped areas?
  Mr. Tracey: I would accept some criticism from the hon. Gentleman if he could convince me that any one of the GLC advertisements that I am talking about mentioned services. Apart from telling us that the GLC is apparently working for London, nothing else is said about services. The expenditure of £12 million is perfectly well documented. It includes not only direct expenditure on advertising hoardings, advertising in newspapers, and so on, but numerous leaflets coming not simply from the GLC but from many other bodies that the GLC has been conveniently propping up as indirect propaganda sources in its scurrilous campaign of misinformation in the capital city .
  Only two or three years ago the people of London hardly knew what the GLC did for them. Indeed, those hon. Members who, like myself, have canvassed in GLC elections over the years will know perfectly well that: one could stand on a doorstep and talk about voting in the GLC election and people would ask whether there was really any need to vote, what the GLC did, what it was about and whether the local councils and Parliament were not far more important. I am sure that that is perfectly well accepted by Labour Members, if they are honest with themselves and if they think back. Until the propaganda campaign started, the GLC was virtually unknown to the people of London as a real force.
  Those who attempted to approach the GLC to ask for any task to be carried out would meet exactly the kind of image that the GLC is now claiming for Whitehall. On another of those massive hoardings that we see on the street corners there is depicted a brick wall wearing a pinstripe suit and a bowler hat. That is the true interpretation of the attitudes of so many people in the GLC—both now and a few years ago.
  The idea of the abolition of the GLC in the Conservative party has been building up for several years. I recollect only too well that in 1977, after Sir Horace Cutler had won a memorable election victory, there was talk in the Conservative party to the effect that if we were to carry out our intended policy of devolving the housing responsibilities of the GLC to the boroughs there would not be much left to do.
  Well, the Conservative party devolved the housing responsibilities to the boroughs in about 1979. The GLC's responsibilities for local government work in London fell from between 25 and 30 per cent. to between 20 and 15 per cent. We know now that since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport piloted through the excellent London Regional Transport Act those responsibilities have fallen even further. Indeed, as I said earlier, they have fallen to the point that the GLC is now responsible for 10 per cent., probably less, of the work of Greater London.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Would the hon. Gentleman care to go back to that election victory of 1977 when the Conservatives won and the then leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, described the GLC Tory victory as being the jewel in the crown? What has changed her mind about the jewel, or indeed the crown?
  Mr. Tracey: The hon. Gentleman may or may not accept that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister felt that Londoners were beginning to accept the essential Conservative philosophy of cleaning up local government expenditure and devolving powers where they truly

  171
  belonged, according to Sir Horace Cutler's policy which was endorsed. The jewel in the crown was the fact that it was a major breakthrough that the electorate should understand that Conservative policy.
  While we are talking about past policies let me remind the hon. Gentleman—does he need reminding?—that in 1979 the friend to whom he talks so regularly, Mr. Ken Livingstone, said in a debate in county hall:
  "I feel a degree of regret that Marshall"—
  Lord Marshall, who had just conducted an inquiry—
  "did not push on and say 'abolish the GLC', because I think it would have been a major saving and would have released massive resources which could have been put into far more productive use."
  Perhaps Mr. Ken Livingstone would like to put that quotation on the front of county hall so that Londoners can see what he said in 1979.
  Even better, perhaps Mr. Livingstone would like to put up another quote which was given more recently, in June 1982. He spoke to a conference of council treasurers—the conference of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy—and said:
  "I have always at heart been committed to the borough council rather than to regional government."
  How can a man change his mind so much and commit himself to so much hypocritical advertising when he has said twice in the past few years that he believes in precisely what this Government now propose?
  At the risk of embarrassing Opposition Members and of reminding them of their true hypocrisy, I must give two more quotations. They are essential, and should be grasped by the people when considering this timely Bill. Here is an interesting quotation:
  "The Labour party is now preparing a major programme of local government reform. The time has come once and for all to introduce what most people devoted to local government now recognise as the most democratic as well as the most efficient form of authority. We shall therefore legislate to create unitary district authorities which will be responsible for all of the functions in their area that they can sensibly undertake".
  That quotation comes from a press release issued on 11 February 1983 — I believe at the time of the local government conference of the Labour party in Portsmouth —by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who was then shadow Secretary of State for the Environment.
  Mr. Tony Banks: And look what happened to him.
  Mr. Tracey: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) seems to be muttering from a sedentary position. It may be suggested that that was the individual view of the right hon. Member for Gorton, but what about this quotation:
  "We aim to end if we can the confusing division of services between two tiers of authority. Unitary district authorities in England and Wales could be responsible for all the functions in this area that they could sensibly undertake"?
  That quotation comes from the Labour party's manifesto for the general election in June 1983. Presumably it was subscribed to by the massed ranks on the Opposition Benches. How can Labour Members seriously tell us this afternoon that they believe in the two tiers, the GLC and the London borough councils, which are, of course, the primary authorities? The fact is that Labour Members genuinely believe in the same policies as us. It is simply for reasons of hypocrisy and political cant that they say that this afternoon—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot accuse other hon. Members of hypocrisy. I ask him to withdraw that word. I am sure that he can find another word with which to express the meaning that he wishes to convey.
  Mr. Tracey: I withdraw that word, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps Labour Members believe in factual inexactitude and a certain amount of dyslexia. I hope that you will accept the word cynical, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I believe that some extremely cynical political campaigning has come from Opposition Members and their colleagues across the river. They suggest that Londoners will be worse off under this Government's policies which will shortly be set out in a Bill.
  We believe that local government does mean local. That is what we are aiming at. We believe that people will get better value for money and more attention and sensitivity if they deal with their local borough councils. I suspect that that view is shared by the staff across the river. It was interesting to hear, during this so-called day of action when there has been talk of democracy and so on from some Opposition Members, that the members of the GLC's staff association were advised by their leaders not to have any part in the charade that is being played by their political masters in county hall.
  The people of London will be better served by their borough councillors than by those in county hall. In my borough, the people will be served by 50 councillors as against two members of the GLC. I believe that they will be served better by their town hall than by county hall, which is superfluous to the local government of London.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Peter Pike: I am glad to speak after the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) and to correct some of his misconceptions. He said that in London only 10 per cent. of expenditure was spent by the GLC and that that was a good reason for abolishing it. The Secretary of State referred to the same figures when he opened the debate. There is an inconsistency in the Government's argument. In one breath they say that the GLC is extravagant and wastes money and in the next they say that it cannot be serving any useful purpose because its expenditure is less than 10 per cent. of expenditure in London.
  However, there is no inconsistency in the Labour party's attitude or in the quotations that have been given from different spokesmen who say that they believe that most of the powers should rest with the borough authorities. At present that is exactly the position in London and the metropolitan counties. Indeed, there would be support for a Bill introduced during this Session if it reorganised local government throughout the country and if that reorganisation was based on unitary authorities and involved passing power back to the boroughs in the non-metropolitan counties.
  I represent a non-metropolitan borough that was a county borough and we have always fought, and will continue to fight, for some of the services to be returned to a more local level, where they can be administered more closely to the people, thus providing a better service. I certainly believe that the social services should be tied to the authorities with housing departments. It is nonsense that boroughs such as Burnley, Blackburn, Preston, Nottingham, Portsmouth, Bristol and so on do not have

  173
  any responsibility for the social services. The Labour party stands for returning more powers to the local boroughs where applicable.
  The hon. Member for Surbiton gave a quotation containing the words
  "that they could sensibly undertake."
  That brings us back to the old argument. We would argue that some services and powers need to rest with a tier of local government that is above the borough level and that there is thus a need for a second tier of government. However, the services must be at the right level. In the metropolitan counties, the division of services is probably reasonable and fair, but in the shire counties there is a need to bring them back closer to the people.
  I was a councillor in London in the early 1960s at the time of the Herbert commission report, which led to the 1963 reorganisation of London. I accept that the Labour party was then mainly opposed to that legislation. However, I happened to be in favour of it, as I believed that it was the right way forward. After all, the boundaries that then existed for London county council had been drawn in 1889. They may have been fair and sensible then, but they did not take account of the urban development and sprawl that took place at the end of the last century and the beginning of this.
  Therefore, that reorganisation merely recognised London's boundaries as they were in 1963. I was on Merton and Morden district council in the old Surrey county council area. I did not believe that we were part of Surrey in that context. Our affinity was with London. Transport and other responsibilities had to be tied in with London. We need the GLC and metropolitan counties because planning and co-operation cannot be dealt with by the individual boroughs.
  I was in Manchester when the metropolitan counties were established in the 1970s. Before reorganisation, as many as six different bus services could operate, charging six different fares on some routes. That was nonsense. It is right that greater Manchester should run transport for the whole area.
  Although I had no traditional roots in the area, I always recognised that Manchester was not just the city but greater Manchester. Bolton, Rochdale, Oldham and other places belong to greater Manchester and have to be tied for certain aspects of local government.
  We still await the exact proposals, but I believe that the joint boards and quangos will be undemocratic. They will not operate in the interests of good local government. The Bill will not improve services for the people. Its motive is purely political. The Bill is certainly not in the interests of local government. We need some reorganisation, but the shire counties should have priority.
  Local government should be able to spend more money. Central Government restrictions are tying the hands of local government behind its back. Local authorities are tied on capital and revenue expenditure, yet in 1979 the Government were elected on the commitment to give freedom to local government. They have provided that freedom, but they have stopped local government from doing anything because they have withdrawn its financial power. Local government needs more money so that it can provide the services and meet the needs of the community. The people at local level know which services are required. I do not believe that local government has been irresponsible in that respect.
  174
  I accept that central Government, whether Labour or Conservative, has the right to say how much funding will come from central Government. Local government has the right to argue that that amount is insufficient. The Opposition have the same right. I accept that the Government have the right to say, "This is what we are prepared to spend," but they do not then have the right to tell local government that it cannot raise funds locally if the local people are prepared to let them do it. That is how the Government are going wrong. They should allow local councils the freedom to raise funds to provide the required services.
  The Secretary of State referred to the privatisation of refuse collection. The proposition is nonsense. In my many years in local government I have seen the results of the pressures on direct labour organisations. I remember a company in Burnley which beat direct labour on a contract for sheltered housing. Soon after the contract was completed, the company went out of business. Some companies are prepared to cut corners and prices, but once they have put direct labour out of business they will be free to charge what they want, because there will be no competition. A direct labour organisation cannot be recreated overnight. That is what the Tory legislation is about. The Government say, "Let's get rid of direct labour and cleansing departments." Once they succeed, local government will have to pay a high price.
  More money should be spent on the provision of homes for the elderly. Councils are unable to provide homes for the elderly because they do not have the resources. They are tied by revenue restrictions. At the same time, there is a massive growth throughout the country of private residential homes for the elderly. The people who need the homes cannot afford them and are subsidised by about £45 a week each by the DHSS. I am not against that money being paid to look after our elderly people, but I am against people making profit out of the elderly. It is a disgrace. Local government has a responsibility to care for the elderly and it should be given sufficient money to provide homes for all the elderly people who require them.
  Local government must also provide more sheltered housing. Sufficient resources are not available to meet the demand. About £15 million-worth of applications for grant have been made in Burnley, but only £3 minion is available. It will be at least 15 years before Burnley is able to modernise its pre-war council houses and bring them up to an acceptable standard. That is deplorable and unacceptable. We need more resources. Despite that, the Government talk of cutting £500 million or £600 million off the money that might be available for next year's housing programme. We need more resources, not fewer.
  The White Paper on transport, published in July.. is appalling and will be a disaster for bus services. In the last five days, I have received about 300 communications from constituents protesting at the proposed Bill. They are worried about the future of bus services in their area. Many Conservatives will have to worry about what will happen to their local bus services.
  There will be competition. People will want to run buses in the rush hours along the busiest routes, but they will not want to run them out of the rush hours when pensioners want to go to do their shopping or in the evening when people want to go into town. The people will not then have the transport to which they are entitled.
  I served on Burnley's joint transport committee. Burnley has run its transport with a neighbouring borough

  175
  for 50 years. Of all the committees on which I served that was the most difficult. It is difficult to balance the charge to the passenger, the Government and the rate subsidy with breaking even' and providing a service.
  Burnley and Pendle made the first agency agreement with the National Bus Company and other operators. We signed it a number of years ago and it became a model. From that date all the services were co-ordinated. If we have spare buses they run on the Ribble route; if Ribble has spare buses they operate on our routes. We use the buses sensibly and logically to reduce the overall commitment. Manchester and west Yorkshire buses, and others, run on our routes. We try to reduce the cost to ratepayers.
  In Lancashire, 10 operators carry 110 million passengers a year on nearly 1,000 buses and the turnover is more than £54 million. The Lancashire bus network is the biggest for any shire county. About 60 per cent. of the county's bus routes require subsidy and 40 per cent. of Lancashire households do not have a car. The percentage of non-car owners in my constituency is higher than that. About 50 per cent. of the constituents in Blackburn and Burnley do not have cars. Only one bus route in Burnley makes a profit and it does so for only part of the day. In many outlying rural areas it is not possible to run an economic bus service, but we must provide a service. It is the elderly and the young who will be hit hardest if we eliminate the public service.
  The National Bus Company has said, "If you wish to privatise go ahead, because we do not want to get involved in the privatisation argument." However, it has added, "If you do privatise, do not split up the company, because that would be a disaster." That is the view that Lord Shepherd would express and it is the view of the Ribble management in Lancashire.
  I believe that there will be a massive public outcry against the Bill if it is drafted along the lines of the White Paper. Privatisation and deregulation will mean the withdrawal of many evening, Saturday and off-peak services. It will mean substantial cuts to essential rural and suburban routes. There will be massive reductions in the size of the bus network. Co-ordinated bus timetables will be replaced with irregular and sporadic ones. It has been said in some of the trial areas that some buses will not run unless it is commercially viable for them to do so. There will be more older buses and a consequent reduction in the standards of safety, maintenance and cleanliness. In some trial areas, buses have operated with a bucket in which to throw the fare and a cardboard sticker stating the bus's destination. There will be major problems for the young, the elderly and all who are dependent on bus services. The Bill will be a tragedy for bus transport and the Government must think again.
  Bus transport should be available when it is needed. It does not matter much whether we are car owners now because at some stage we shall all depend on public transport. Buses should be available when we want to travel on them and not only at peak hours. We want to know that there is a service that will take us to where we want to get. It must be a regular and efficient service and we should ensure that it is made available. The Government's proposals in the White Paper will not lead to such provision. They may lead to some who live on the route of a good service enjoying a benefit, but the majority
  176
  will lose. It will be a disaster and the Government must think again, discard the proposals in the White Paper and reject the idea of introducing a privatisation Bill.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Rob Hayward: I am grateful to be able to participate in the debate after the remarks of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) about the possibility of transferring certain services from county councils and his assertion that the services provided by the metropolitan counties are about right.
  I presumed that this debate would provide an opportunity for Opposition Members to express their seething anger and opposition to the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan counties. Does the present attendance of Opposition Members reflect the Opposition's display of seething anger against the abolition of the authorities? For the past 10 or 15 minutes there have been more Opposition Members present representing Welsh constituencies than those representing metropolitan counties. There have been more Opposition Members present representing Lancashire than those representing constituencies in the GLC. This is the Opposition's seething anger against abolition!
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has pointed several times to the Government Benches, but this debate is the Opposition's opportunity to express opposition to the proposed abolition. It is not necessary on this occasion for large numbers of Members to express their support for the proposal. It is traditional for those who oppose a proposal to take their place in the Chamber and to oppose it.
  We are witnessing the attendance of those who oppose the Government's proposed abolition Bill. They consist of Members representing Welsh and Lancashire seats: there are few from the metropolitan counties. Throughout the debate, only one Opposition Member has been present who represents a constituency within the area of the West Midlands county council, and he was on the Opposition Front Bench. This is the seething resentment of the Opposition that we are facing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) and I opposed the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, as it then was, but I do not share the views that he expressed on the proposed abolition Bill. I also understand that my hon. Friend's views are not shared by one or two of my hon. Friends who voted against the interim provisions Bill in the previous Session.
  I shall now direct my remarks specifically to airports. Many decisions will be taken within the next few months affecting airports throughout the country. These decisions will have an effect for the next decade and could well have a bearing on air services into the year 2000 and beyond.
  The fourth terminal at Heathrow is to be opened next year and there is a commitment that when it is opened the air traffic movements should be limited to 275,000 per annum. That commitment was entered into but it was said that the limit would be reviewed when new aircraft, capable of operating at much lower noise levels, were introduced. The new noise limits will be come effective on 1 January 1986. The new limit of 275,000 ATMs will be imposed in October 1985 and there will be an opportunity for review on 1 January 1986. Surely it would be logical for the review to begin now so that any decision on the level of ATMs can be taken in advance of the opening of the fourth terminal at Heathrow.

  177
  When it was decided in 1979 that the limit of 275,000 ATMs should apply, the nature of the aircraft then flying was very different from the nature of those currently flying and which will be flying out of Heathrow in 1986. The noise nuisance which was presumed in 1979 was very different from that which applies now and it will be substantially different from that which will apply from 1 January 1986. I ask the Government seriously to consider removing the limit and accepting the part of the Civil Aviation Authority's report which advocates a possible limit of 315,000 ATMs per annum. Paragraph 35 of the CAA's report states:
  "Indubitably so far as the needs of all categories of users and the effcient development of airlines are concerned, the national interest is best served by developing to the full the potential of those airports to which the market-place has awarded the accolade of success and growth. In the national commercial interest, the right policy must surely be to maximise the opportunities for British airlines to exploit the positive attributes of the best airports that we have. We should look therefore to every possibility for increasing their opportunities to serve Heathrow and Gatwick. The first priority must be to build on proven success."
  I share that view, as do most of the British airways and international airways. It seems sensible to follow the policy that is advocated by the CAA. Paragraph 37 of its report states:
  "These restrictions were adopted on the basis of expectations about the levels of aircraft noise and other developments which have largely been falsified by subsequent events."
  We must grapple with the problem of growing air traffic movement. If we do not, we shall have to decide whether there should be a fifth terminal at Heathrow or whether we should go ahead and develop Stansted. The Government will probably have to take up that issue during the Session also.
  If the limit of 275,000 air traffic movements is retained, the excess will have to go somewhere. If it goes to other countries in Europe, we shall, as a country, lose the revenue from the movements of those aircraft. In addition, there will be the loss sustained as a result of some tourists not coming to Britain. The other possibility is that the flights will be forced to go to somewhere else, such as Stansted.
  If there is an environmental difficulty in flying in and out of Heathrow, or if it causes a problem to have one movement or 15,000 movements in and out of Heathrow over and above the 275,000, surely there is an environmental problem wherever those flights go.
  I share the views of large numbers of hon. Members in all parts of the House that it is not in the nation's interest that a third major airport should be developed in the south-east of England. When we advocate that Stansted should be expanded, we seem to assume that no one lives around Stansted, but large numbers of people live in that area, and the population is growing very rapidly on both sides of the county border of Essex and Hertfordshire. The population around Heathrow airport, by contrast, is relatively static. By having a third major airport at Stansted we shall only move the problem from one place to another, to the detriment not only of Heathrow and Gatwick but of the provincial airports.
  Mr. Ground: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene on what, I fear, may be another matter on which I shall disagree with him. Will he agree that for every 10,000 people affected at Stansted there are hundreds of thousands of people affected in west London?
  Mr. Hayward: No. I referred to the noise footprints at the different NNI levels, using them as an assessment of the disturbance caused to local residents, but because of the change in technology in aero engines and aero wings, we are no longer talking about hundreds of thousands or millions of people in the way that we did previously. The footprints have progressively narrowed and will continue to do so. I accept that there will always be substantially more people affected at Heathrow, but the people in that area are already inconvenienced by 275,000 movements per annum. To take up huge areas of land in Essex for the expansion of a third south-eastern airport cannot be in the best interests of the area's of the nation's economy.
  In arguing that the figure should be raised to about 315,000 air traffic movements, I am not advocating that the night flight restrictions should be removed. The figure of 315,000 can well be accommodated with ordinary daytime operations. Circumstances have changed. When the original application was made for 260,000 ATMs as a limit, that was the assumed capacity of Heathrow's runways. That is no longer so. It is now probably about 330,000 on daytime movements alone.
  The solution to part of the problem—and it is a very limited solution—lies in the stolport, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) referred earlier. The problem of the stolport has been with us for longer than I realised. In preparing my comments I looked at the Financial Times of 12 October 1983, which said that
  "The inquiry into the scheme is still in progress and a decision by the Secretary of State for the Environment is not likely before early next year."
  That report referred to early 1984, and it now looks as though the decision will not be taken before early 1985. The longer any decision on airports is delayed — and particularly on a project such as the stolport—the more likely it is that there will be increasing pressure for the development of Stansted.
  Provincial airports have a major service to offer in the overall provision of air movements, not only within Britain but within Europe as a whole. I have in mind airports such as East Midlands, Birmingham, Manchester, those in Scotland and Bristol airport. I have already referred to Heathrow airport, which is close to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston, and I hestitate to mention Bristol airport, as it is within your own constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But those provincial airports can ease the burden on the south-eastern airports by providing routes into Europe at a greater level than at present. There is an indication from most provincial airports that the demand is growing. There are applications from a large number of provincial airports for extra funding. If, with the support of the Government, that extra funding is granted, the improved facilities will be able to provide services into Europe and will ease the problem for the south-east.
  I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my comments fall within the words of the Gracious speech to which the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) referred:
  "Other matters will be laid before you".
  It is with those comments that I should like to conclude.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: When I heard the Gracious Speech from the Throne

  179
  yesterday I was waiting for some proposals which would have been of assistance to my constituents and to the rest of the people of Liverpool. I heard nothing whatever which would help them or which was relevant in any way to their problems.
  I listened this afternoon to the Secretary of State for the Environment in the hope that we might hear something from the Government about how they intend to help local authorities to keep within the law by meeting the needs of people who require social services, adequate housing, and proper fire precautions in their flats. I heard nothing whatever about such matters.
  When the Government talk about law breakers, they should ask themselves which laws they do not want local authorities to break. Throughout his speech the Secretary of State spoke of the need for controls over local authorities' public expenditure. None of that was relevant. Incidentally, when the Government talk of law breakers, do they include the people who broke the law some years ago by exporting goods illegally to the rebel regime in Southern Rhodesia? When the next Labour Government come to power we shall need to dust the Bingham report and take it down from the shelves, so that we can see who were the real law breakers then.
  I looked for a glimmer of hope for the 29,000 people in Liverpool with unmet housing needs. There was no mention of housing. The Minister for Housing and Construction, who has at least seen some of the conditions in part of my constituency, has been silent. He sat on the Government Front Bench like an ornament. I do not know whether he intends to intervene in the debate at some point, but we have a right to hear what he intends to do as a result of his recent visit to Liverpool.
  In Liverpool we have a long queue of people who are supposed to have medical priority for rehousing. There are cancer patients and people suffering from emphysema who visit me in my surgery. They do not ask me when the Government intend to privatise this, that or the other concern. Such things are totally irrelevant to their problems. In Liverpool, 5,000 corporation houses are lying empty after 10 years of neglect by the Liberals—that other Tory party on the Liverpool city council—aided and abetted by the rump of the Tory party. The Tory party has only nine members on the Liverpool city council, so that there is no prospect whatever of the Tory party ever again coming to power in Liverpool. Labour city councillors in Liverpool had to face the problem of housing neglect when they came to office in 1983. That is why they are dealing with it by looking at 17 priority areas for which they need Government assistance.
  There is nothing in the Queen's Speech to help those in my constituency and other parts of the city of Liverpool who, every morning, have to clear up the open areas outside their flats because drug addicts have been there the night before. Drug addicts did not exist in large numbers in the city until it was ravaged by the Government's economic policies — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I assure Conservative Members that that is so. The people on Croxteth housing estate never knew what heroin was until we had massive unemployment, with 94 per cent. of young people on that estate without permanent employment. That is the serious issue to which the Government should address themselves.
  180
  Old people and one-parent families are isolated on huge housing estates. Their only hope lies in the Merseyside county council giving assistance through cheaper fares policies on the buses. Those fares allow relatives—often unemployed — to visit the old folk. There was no mention of such policies in the Gracious Speech. There was only one glimmer of hope, in the sentence that read:
  "Other measures will be laid before you."
  We live in hope, for that is all that we have under the Government. We hope that there will be some measures laid before us that will help the chronically sick and disabled to get their rights under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. We hope that there will be measures to allow old folk to be properly cared for instead of put up in hotels, as thousands are—at a huge cost to the ratepayers, about whom the Conservative party is supposed to be so concerned. Some 2,200 families in London alone are housed in hotels at an average cost of £200 a week. That is more than right hon. and hon. Members receive as an allowance for living in London to do our duties in the House.
  We read that the Government are deeply concerned about unemployment, yet at the same time as we have such serious problems, we find that the Secretary of State is trying—he has not been successful so far—to argue his corner in the Cabinet in a bid to save £600 million that his right hon. Friend—he is not a friend to many people—the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to lop off expenditure on housing, construction and improvement grants.
  When the Conservative party talks about feathering the nests of its friends in private industry, it should consider how much private industry depends upon tenders from local authorities. Conservative Members should consider how many people in the building industry—perhaps in a small way—are dependent upon contracts from local authorities. The Government now refuse to give adequate housing investment aid to our people, so some private companies face bankruptcy and are having to shed their labour force.
  In our country, we have the obscenity of 400,000 building workers on the dole at the same time as 1·2 million people are on housing waiting lists. Some 300,000 people are classified as homeless and 1·2 million houses are officially classified as unfit for human habitation.
  Since 1979, 700,000 council houses have been sold but only 275,000 have been built. The other Tories in Liverpool—the Liberal party — did not build a single council house for four or five years before the Labour party came to office. One cannot tell people to buy their own house. Where does an unemployed person get a mortgage to buy a house, even his own council house? It is impossible. I say to hon. Members who look for a property-owning democracy that for people who live in large areas of Liverpool the property-owning democracy is a long way away. Although the Secretary of State has seen some of the housing problems in Liverpool, and has said that they are the worst that he has seen anywhere, all that we get from him are threats about what will happen next year to Liverpool city council if it does not carry out his diktat.
  We often compare this Tory Government with the more compassionate—in inverted commas, perhaps—period of Harold Macmillan, Eden or Churchill after the war. However, we could even compare this extremist Tory Government with the Government of the 1930s. I recall

  181
  that some years ago Lord Boothby said that that Government were a disaster, but even they managed to reflate the economy. In 1932, 22 per cent. of working people were unemployed, but by 1937 a figure of only 9·7 per cent. unemployment reigned. Part of the reason for the reduction was the huge housing investment in the building of council and municipal estates in probably every city in the United Kingdom. We can see the result today. However, the present Government turn their face from the problem.
  We are used to the fact that the Government are blind to the needs of people in the large conurbations. The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) accused Labour Members of not being here in large numbers to argue the case for the metropolitan counties. I notice that he is no longer here, but I assure him that the Bill that the Secretary of State threatens to bring before the House in the next few weeks will be bitterly opposed. We in the Opposition know that it will be bitterly opposed, with the support of the overwhelming majority of people in our areas. I know that I can speak with authority for the people of Merseyside, who are overwhelmingly in support of their county council.
  A parish magazine was sent to me only this morning from St. Andrew's church in my constituency. One of the articles states that the church hall is being rebuilt, thanks to help from Merseyside Improvements Ltd, which is working for us because it is part of Merseyside county council's enterprise for creating jobs. We have created 8,000 jobs through our assistance schemes on Merseyside for small businesses and co-operatives. I can tell the people of Merseyside that, if the Government get their way, many services will disappear for ever. We can say goodbye to ferries on the river Mersey. We can say goodbye to Liverpool airport. The speech of the hon. Member for Kingswood was mainly concerned with airports and the need for airports in provincial towns.
  There will be an end to cheaper bus fares. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), I represent a constituency where a considerable number of people have no car. In one area, according to the 1981 census, 75 per cent. are not car owners. Like the old people, they depend upon cheaper fares. There will be an end to all Merseyside council's schemes to help the unemployed by providing special centres and encouraging small businesses and co-operatives.
  No assistance will be forthcoming — or none is suggested in the Queen's Speech—for drug addicts. I know that this is not the province of the Secretary of State, but local authorities such as Liverpool and Merseyside have been giving positive assistance to voluntary efforts to treat those who need help because of their addiction to heroin. There was no mention of any help in that area, despite all the wonderful words at the Tory party conference only a few weeks ago.
  The Secretary of State tells us that there will still be democratically elected local authorities. He points to the districts and the London boroughs. The fact is, however, that on Merseyside only 4 per cent. of the functions of the Merseyside county council will go to each of the five directly elected local authorities. Eighty per cent. of the expenditure of Merseyside county council is on the police, the fire service, the highways and passenger transport, and all those services will be administered by joint boards. The feeling of integration which a large county council such as Merseyside has will be lacking.
  182
  All the problems which existed before 1974 will reappear — the problems of overspill, overlap and duplication. We will see a return to the situation before the local government reform of the 1880s and 1890s, when there was a chaos of authorities. If the Bill becomes law, there will a chaos of authorities, each with the right to levy a rate. The ratepayers may receive not just one rate demand but a score of them.
  Let us not be under the impression that the Government are doing what they are doing because they are incompetent. They are not incompetent. They may be evil. They may be wicked. They are certainly immoral. I accuse the Government of deliberately creating the class society which the Prime Minister idealises. The Prime Minister wants a return to Victorian values, and the Government are doing their job.
  There is a lesson here for the Labour party. We must appreciate that we live in a class society — a society which is becoming even more divided as a result of the Government's policies. None of their policies is more divisive than the attack upon the organisations which exist to protect the working people—the mass of the people—from the tremors of the economic system. There has been an attack on the trade unions which protect the workers at their place of work. There is an attack on local authorities. People who elect Labour councils want them to protect them in their community. We are facing the most class-generating Government that there has been since the end of the second world war or earlier.
  We must recognise the Government for what they are. I expect from the Government no redress for the ills of our society. I hope, however, that those Conservative Members who have some guts and some spirit and who still believe in a more compassionate society will rid themselves of the scourge of the present Prime Minister and a Front Bench of men who are nothing but her puppets and who are incapable of leading the country into a more just and generous society.
  8.5 pm
  Dr. Ian Twinn: As a London Member, I am pleased to have the opportunity warmly to welcome the proposals in the Queen's Speech for the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils.
  I had a unique opportunity this summer to find out exactly what my electors thought about the GLC. The GLC wished on London a series of four mock by-elections, and one of them fell in the old Edmonton constituency, which coincides with much of the area that I represent. I went out of my way to talk to as many of my constituents as possible. It was a golden opportunity to canvass their views, although we did not put up candidates ourselves in the spurious by-elections. We found that well over 70 per cent. of the electors in Edmonton thought that the Government's proposals would bring local government closer to them and that they would feel more able to influence decision making in local government. That is the key argument in favour of the Government's proposal, because the Government are concerned with democracy and accountability.
  On the day of the by-election, the electors reacted in some ways as hon. Members have reacted today—they stayed away from the event. There was a turnout of only 20 per cent. I am pleased to say that my Conservative association had worked hard to persuade people of what they should do. It was no coincidence that there was a low

  183
  turnout. We had done a full canvass. No Opposition Member could claim that people were misled or uninterested. We found that people on the doorstep were passionately interested. They saw through the gimmick of the Labour party in London in calling the by-elections, and they stayed away in droves.
  There is a conflict —I am the first to admit it—between the voting behaviour of electors on election day and the results of polls in London, advertised by the GLC, which show that many Londoners are worried about the abolition of the GLC and seem to show some support—spurious support, in my view—for the Labour group on the GLC. However, it is not surprising that London electors feel confused and worried. If I had had over £12 million over the past two or three years to spend on putting my views to the electors of London, I am sure that I could have persuaded them of the virtues of those views.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has talked about morality. What can one say about the morality of the Labour members of the GLC who have spent £12 million of ratepayers' money on party political propaganda designed to bribe the electors of London and persuade them to support their views? The expenditure of such a sum of money is bound to have some effect. If advertisements had no effect, we should hardly have an advertising industry as strong as we do. The money spent by the GLC on advertising may have been better spent on some of the voluntary organisations that the GLC shouts about so much. The £12 million would have gone a long way. There are causes in my constituency that would have benefited greatly from cash handouts from the GLC.
  Mr. Tony Banks: They have had them.
  Dr. Twinn: They have had very little.
  During the last Session of Parliament the director general of the GLC produced for us a list of the great works that the GLC had managed over the years. I went through it. I admit that it was not a full list but the best examples of the grants and help that had been given to Londoners. There were only 2,000 or 3,000 given to my constituents despite the fact that we have areas of need. Over the boundary in Haringey we find that money has been pouring out to women's groups and all sorts of other fringe groups. They may be worthy. I am not necessarily criticising the aims of those groups.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that women constitute a fringe group?
  Dr. Twinn: I am suggesting that the activities of some of the groups that call themselves women's groups are fringe activities. Some of them are fringe groups. I hasten to add that women should not be described as "fringe", as so ably demonstrated by the hon. Lady. Perhaps I may congratulate her on her new appointment to speak on transport matters for the Opposition.
  The GLC has done precious little for Edmonton over the years. The results of that neglect have been shown by the attitude of voters in Edmonton.
  I regularly see refugees pouring over the boundary from Haringey. There are firms which, with the combination of the high rates in the London borough of Haringey and the crippling rates piled on by the GLC, can no longer conduct
  184
  their businesses there and move into the relative haven of Enfield where we have only the GLC's crippling rate. Unfortunately, too many of those firms jump the London boroughs. They miss Enfield and fly to the counties where there are more sympathetic councils that are far more interested in retaining jobs for their residents. That is something that the GLC has neglected.
  The Edmonton electors have carefully considered the GLC's record on transport. There are its proposals for night and weekend lorry bans in London. I represent a strong manufacturing area. We rely upon the regular movement of goods from factories working through the night. We are to be told that they can move their goods in and out of their factories only at the whim of the GLC. That will force out manufacturing jobs from my constituency, jobs from London generally and jobs beyond the M25 ring. That is a disgrace.
  We hear pious platitudes from county hall about saving jobs, although there are proposals for weekend and night lorry bans which will destroy jobs in our areas. The GLC has done more than that. It has held up useful lorry bans which could have been implemented—for example, the Barnet-Enfield lorry ban. It is a small area lorry ban. We could have had many more lorry bans in London to protect residential areas. [Interruption.] Opposition transport spokespersons choose to laugh about that. They find it humorous that they can create discomfort for residential areas so that they can implement their infamous schemes for banning commercial traffic from the whole of London.
  Mr. Peter Snape: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any good reason why the citizens of other parts of Greater London should not enjoy the same benefits of lorry bans as those whom he represents in Enfield?
  Dr. Twinn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is no reason why other areas of Greater London should not benefit from lorry bans, but they should not be blanket lorry bans. They should be lorry bans to protect distinct small residential areas from noise and fume pollution. It is no answer to implement a complete blanket lorry ban.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Dr. Twinn: I continue because I know that the hon. Gentleman will take every opportunity to divert me on to other roads and it is other roads that I wish to deal with—for example, the north circular road. I welcome the Government's programme for road improvement and the benefit that it will bring to my constituents. Despite the literary associations of the constituency, being well known for John Gilpin and an earlier form of transport, we are also far too well known as a vast bottleneck and traffic jam at the Angel in Edmonton where traffic piles up east, west, north and south, as any listener to Capital Radio knows. We receive free publicity for the constituency in a rather unfortunate way.
  The Department of Transport has just announced preferred routes for road improvements on the north circular. They will be greatly welcomed in the constituency. Unfortunately, they are opposed by the GLC, which again shows its cavalier disregard for the need to protect local residents and to encourage local industry; to allow it to remain, expand and invest in a secure future knowing that it can move its goods in and out.
  I welcome the Government's approach to the reform of local government—to make local government in London

  185
  more democratic and to give my electors a chance to have a greater say in how local government is organised. Although I welcome it, I urge the Government to bring all powers down to the lowest possible level — the boroughs. I hope that when the Government introduce the legislation they will avoid giving power to those sombre towers that dominate London — the Departments of Transport and the Environment in Marsham street. If there is a worry that my constituents share with me, it is that civil servants in the Departments of Environment and Transport, however ably they are led by my right hon. and hon. Friends, will not be in touch with what my electors want.
  I hope to hear that the Government will not keep powers unnecessarily and how they intend necessary reserve powers to be used. It will be necessary for the Departments of the Environment and Transport to use reserve powers, because however much we love our neighbours, whether they are Socialist or Conservative, one London borough will at times disagree with another. They will come into conflict, and that will have to be resolved. I hope that the Government will be able to help London on that.
  I am not impressed by the rumours I hear that the House might be persuaded to have a committee of London Members as a talking shop to oversee London matters. I find that idea repellent, because of what we have witnessed today. On these Benches there are two London Members. During previous Sessions of Parliament few London Members on either side have turned up for London debates. I am not convinced that regular committee meetings will have a better turnout, or that people elected to this place are necessarily those who should be talking about the local government needs of London. If I were to believe that, I should contradict myself. I have spent some minutes in trying to persuade Opposition Members that we want more local democracy. To institute discussions in the House would be contrary to that.
  I certainly do not believe that I have a mandate from June 1983 to talk about local government issues here in terms of day-to-day organisation. Grand principles such as those proposed in legislation to outlaw the GLC and the metropolitan counties are, of course, quite right for this place. The detail, however, is not. [Interruption.] Lest I be misunderstood, I should make it clear that I welcome the reform of local government in London and I am a firm believer in the abolition of the GLC. Nevertheless, I believe that the Government should tread very carefully in handling the detail. I do not believe that there should be another elected authority for London. I entirely reject that, but the idea of another bottleneck of discussion without power in the shape of a committee in this place would also be a great mistake.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Jim Callaghan: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on the Queen's Speech. I wish to deal with the section which states:
  "Legislation will be introduced for the better protection of food and the environment."
  I welcome any legislation for the better protection of the environment.
  Some years ago I was canvassing with a friend, Frank Aveyard in the Moss Side by-election campaign caused by the death of my great personal friend Frank Hatton, whose loss was shared by the whole House. When we knocked at a ground floor flat a young mother with a child came
  186
  to the door. Having listened to our entreaties on behalf of our candidate she asked why she should vote for any politician—no doubt this experience is familiar to many hon. Members—and asked us to tell her of one thing that politicians had done for her. My reply was rather unusual. I asked whether she could tell me the correct time. She glanced over my shoulder at the clock on the tower of the Refuge insurance building in Manchester's Oxford street, a considerable distance from her home, and told me the time. She was naturally rather puzzled by my question. I explained to her, "That, madam, is what we politicians have done for you. Years ago you could not possibly have seen that clock from this distance."
  I was able to say that because the Clean Air Act 1956 had been brought in, with the support of Members on both sides of the House. I told her that I well remembered the shroud of death that used to descend at the beginning of November, not just on Manchester but on every industrial city in Great Britain. Indeed, it killed many senior members of the population, including my own grandparents who, I believe, went to an early death due to the desperate attempts needed to breathe the foul smog —a mixture of smoke and fog—which descended on the area.
  The Clean Air Act completely abolished the smog, enabling the lady whom I canvassed to see what we politicians had done for the community. I welcomed that Act, unaware that industrialists would be allowed to get away with practices not permitted for the average domestic fuel user. As stopping sulphur dioxide emissions would be very expensive for industry, they found a way round the problem by building tall chimneys. In my constituency there is a famous chimney known as the Schwabes chimney and I remember hearing as a boy the proud boast of Middletonians, which I could never understand, that we had the tallest chimney in Europe. That chimney was dwarfed by those built after the passing of the Clean Air Act. The policy was to tell industrialists to build tall chimneys and get rid of the sulphur dioxide into the higher atmosphere. I did not realise then that, in effect, we were simply exporting our dreadful smog to other countries.
  On 30 July 1984 this year the Select Committee on the Environment produced its fourth report, dealing with acid rain. An Opposition Front Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), invited me to accompany him and a delegation of Members from both sides of the House to visit Scandinavia to see the problems caused by acid rain—which, in my view, is one of the major hazards facing the industrialised world today. Enough is now known, however, to justify the development and application of technology to remove the causes of the effects now so abundantly apparent in Europe and America. The term "acid rain" was first used in 1872 to describe the atmospheric chemical process whereby sulphur dioxide emitted when coal is burnt falls as sulphuric acid in rain. Today it is used to describe the acid deposition caused by a number of pollutants emitted when fossil fuels are burnt.
  The United Kingdom, unfortunately, is the largest producer of acid rain in western Europe. Although the CEGB is the main burner of fossil fuels in this country it has made virtually no reduction in its emissions of SO2, the chemical formula by which acid rain is known. The tall stacks policy has lessened deposition close to power stations, causing the pollutants to be transported over great distances and increasing deposition in areas as remote as

  187
  Norway and Sweden. Indeed, Great Britain is the principal foreign depositor of SO2 in Scandinavia and by 1990 the United Kingdom will be the biggest single polluter of Swedish forests and lakes. Already we deposit 50 per cent. more pollutants in Norway than does any other country. The Government have the opportunity to reverse that state of affairs by implementing the EEC draft directive to reduce SO2, emissions by 60 per cent. between 1980 and 1995, but will they do so?
  During our visit to Norway and Sweden we considered the damage to freshwater life. In doing so we considered the research undertaken in Scandinavia. We found that the clearer the lake, the more poison it contained. Some were crystal-clear because they contained no fish or fauna whatever. The Norwegian state pollution authority told us that in an area of 13,000 sq kms covering four counties of southern Norway all the lakes were practically devoid of fish and in an additional area of 20,000 sq kms, which is 7,720 square miles, fish stocks were reduced. A separate survey showed that of 2,840 lakes 1,711 had lost their fish and in 941 fish stocks were declining. Losses were heaviest for brown trout. The Tovdal river, once a major salmon river, had not had a fish in it for 10 years. In southern Sweden, out of a total of 20,000 lakes, more than 18,000 had been acidified, 4,000 of them seriously enough to damage aquatic life.
  Damage to forests was observed as early as the 1970s and a survey in 1982 showed, for instance, that 8 per cent. of the total forest area of West Germany was affected. A survey in 1983 showed that the proportion had increased to 34 per cent. and it was estimated that the figure for 1984 would be more than 50 per cent. Apart from the extent of the damage, one of the most disturbing features of acid rain damage is the suddenness with which it occurs and increases. Forest damage in Scandinavia and Europe is extensive, accelerating, and of immense economic significance.
  Acid rain affects aquatic freshwater life, plants, trees, human health and historic buildings. Acid rainwater dissolves stonework. During the past 10 years £5 million have been spent on the restoration of the stonework of Westminster abbey. On the south face 44 flying buttresses, built only nine years ago, now require replacement because of SO2, attack. Similar problems have been observed on the Palace of Westminster. Despite the 1956 Act, SO2 levels in Westminster remain high and cause surface powdering, blistering and spalling.
  Each year £1·5 million is spent on Cologne cathedral in West Germany to replace damaged stone. They are replacing a medieval monument with a copy. The renovation of stonework of historic buildings in West Germany costs about £80 million a year. Official sources put the total cost of stone repair at more than £1,000 million a year.
  Despite all the evidence from European countries, there appears to be little anxiety in the United Kingdom about the effect of acid rain on fish, plants, trees and buildings. Why is that so? A reporter for the popular press said:
  "When acid rain burns babies, then it's news. Otherwise don't bother us."
  Those words reveal the attitude of one section of the popular press to acid rain, and partially explain the difference of perception of the phenomenon between the United Kingdom and the continent.
  188
  Widespread anxiety about acid rain deposition has not yet found significant expression in the United Kingdom. The reason for that is probably complex, and may include our geographical position and the funding and organisation of our scientific research. However, we should be worried about our emission of SO2, because the United Kingdom is the largest emitter of SO2, in the whole of Western Europe. We emit 5,120,000 tonnes a year. Italy emits 4,400,000 a year, West Germany emits 3,620,000 a year and France emits 3,600,000 a year. Between 1980 and 1990 United Kingdom emissions are projected to fall by only 5 per cent. In West Germany they are projected to fall by 60 per cent. by 1988. In many other countries they are projected to fall by 30 per cent. by 1985.
  We export 70 per cent. of our emissions. Half of it falls on the sea and 20 per cent. is deposited in other countries, principally in Scandinavia. Therefore, we are the worst polluter in Western Europe.
  Technology exists to achieve SO2 emission reductions of 90 per cent. or more. There is a considerable market in Europe for emission control technology. The Select Committee's report recommends further encouragement for the development of British technology through the national Coal Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board, and grants towards development costs from the Department of Trade and Industry. I welcome that. It also stated that the quickest way to reduce SO2 emissions is by retrofitting power stations. Although the technology is costly and difficult, it is available, and we saw it in Norway. The report recommends that the United Kingdom should join those European countries that have agreed to cut emissions by 30 per cent. immediately.
  I strongly recommend that the Government also make a long-term commitment to further air pollution research to produce a more fundamental strategy based on energy conservation. The solution to the problem is needed urgently. We must not procrastinate.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. Richard Hickmet: I shall speak on that part of the Gracious Speech which deals with local authorities and Government. Local authorities are in the business of providing services which they are under a statutory duty to provide. The Goverment should be in the business of reducing those duties of local authorities, not increasing them. Local authorities are under obligation to provide those services economically and to provide value for money. They are not in the business of promoting their own mini macro-economic schemes, of grant-aiding ever minority interest group that they can find, nor of running advertising campaigns. They are in the business of providing efficient, cost-effective, local services, which they have a statutory duty to provide for those whom they serve.
  Local authorities should examine those areas of their operations to find where they can obtain the best and cheapest service form the private sector. Those areas include refuse collection, street cleaning, garden and parks maintenance, social service laundry maintenance, vehicle maintenance and housing maintenance. They should invite tenders for the performance of those services and accept the lowest tender submitted. Local authorities must provide value for money and must not behave like municipal Prussians. They must not be insensitive to local views and demands or run vast bureaucracies whose vested interest is self-expansion.

  189
  Local authorities play an increasingly important role in employment and the level of unemployment. It must be appreciated that high rates affect jobs. I find increasingly extraordinary the statements of leaders of Labour councils that high rates do not affect jobs and have little or no effect on employment.
  My constituency is serviced by Humberside county council. In one year it increased the rates by 61 per cent. and imposed a supplementary rate. It moved from being one of the lowest rated to one of the highest rated authorities, and increased its establishment from 36,000 to 40,000 people. The Labour leader of that authority wrote to me saying that there was no demonstrable evidence that high rate policies had effects on unemployment or employment.
  As a result of this Government's policies there will be no more supplementary rates, and no more 61 per cent. rate increases. The ratepayers of Humberside have been saved from that sort of lunacy. Meanwhile the rates on a small house in Scunthorpe exceed those paid in some London boroughs — admittedly Tory-controlled boroughs. High rates prevent investment, drive firms away, and put firms out of business. That adds up to fewer jobs and more unemployment. I had the privilege to serve on Wandsworth borough council. It has the lowest rates in inner London and, consequently, one of the lowest rates of unemployment.
  On the subject of rates, will the Secretary of State tell the House what he proposes to do about water rates? Those who live in the Anglian region have the misfortune to pay the highest water rates in the country. A widow who lives alone, pays the same rate as is paid on a house full of people who are earning, when the properties are similar. Is it not possible to introduce a rate rebate in respect of water rates? Can we introduce legislation to cap water rates and to make water authorities answerable to public demand?
  My constituency has three enterprise zones, development area status and access to European money, and we have the prospect of increasing employment if we exploit those resources carefully. But with unemployment of more than 21 per cent. it is essential that the constituency retains its development area status or, preferably, when the regional map is redrawn, is given special development area status.
  While I have the opportunity, may I draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport the important role that the Trent wharves play in my constituency? Compared with 10 years ago, when little use was made of the wharves, the private sector is increasingly using them. In that way the private sector can get round the inefficient port of Hull, where union intransigence, the national dock labour scheme and sheer bloody-mindedness have seen the slow death of a once great port.
  We now have about 10 wharves on the Trent handling several million tonnes of produce a year. There is the prospect of doubling the amount of wharves by using the agricultural land abutting the river Trent. That would create several hundred more jobs and provide the customer with what he wants, which is speed, efficiency and a cost-effective means of getting his goods in and out of the country. Any mention of this causes the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to threaten a public inquiry, because grade 1 agricultural land will be affected. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider that and to advise
  190
  Glandford borough council as to how the proper development of the Trent wharves can be encouraged. They are a national resource that should be available to the country. I remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that, in its draft structure plan, Humberside county council has dismissed the proposal, which means that there is the danger that we shall be cut off from any European regional development fund money to develop the port infrastructure.
  I welcome the proposals to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan authorities, but I want to know why the Secretary of State has victimised my constituency. Why has he not introduced proposals to abolish Humberside and Avon county councils? Those estuarial authorities, created in 1974, remain unpopular and have not been a success, and it is about time that their futures were reviewed. My constituency is run by Hull county councillors, who do not have the interests of south Humberside at heart. My side of the county has been starved of investment. The council is too big, too remote and inefficient. The people of Lincolnshire want Lincolnshire brought back, and the people of Yorkshire want the re-establishment of the East Riding of Yorkshire. If we could only get the names back, it would be something, but it is about time that Aeon and Humberside councils were abolished.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith (Islinton, South and Finsbury): I must take up remarks made by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) and by the Secretary of State for the Environment, both of whom should have known better. They referred to organisations in my constituency that deal with the police, but they have clearly confused two completely separate organisations. The first organisation referred to was Islington council's police committee, which is an admirable body on which I serve as a co-opted member, and which has done much good work during the past two and a half years, especially on crime on council estates and the problems of heroin addiction among young people.
  The second organisation, which was mentioned in a chance remark by the Secretary of State, is a police monitoring organisation that offers assistance to people who have complaints about their treatment by the police. In recent days, that organisation has attracted some bad publicity over the actions of one employee. Nothing has yet been proved, and until proved guilty, an individual must be regarded as innocent. However, questions have been raised, rightly and properly, and a thorough investigation is under way. I hope that the Secretary of State will think more carefully before he makes such a chance and snide remark again.
  There was not a single word in the Queen's Speech, or in the speech of the Secretary of State, about housing. One would have thought that the omission of such a central and crucial area of Government policy meant that the Government were completely satisfied with housing conditions. They seem to believe that the miserable measures that they introduced last year—the Housing and Building Control Act and the Housing Defects Act —are sufficient to answer all the housing problems of the country and especially of my constituency. Of course that is not the case.
  One would have thought from the Governrnent's silence on housing that there was no housing crisis. One would have thought that no people came week after week

  191
  to my constituency surgery with desperate housing problems that only a major programme of investment in housing can begin to solve. One would have thought that the family I visited last week in their flat did not exist. They have four children of different sexes, whose ages range between seven and 20, who sleep in one bedroom. The family is cooped up in that over-crowded and cramped flat and cannot move simply because no accommodation of the right size is available. One would have thought from the Government's silence about housing, and especially bad and inadequate housing, that those people's needs did not exist.
  Neither the Queen's Speech nor the Secretary of State's speech said anything about the scandalous lack of proper investment in housing construction over which the Government have presided. There was no mention of the projected £600 million cut in housing investment programme allocations which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is widely reported as being about to announce. There was no mention of the further tinkering with the rules about the way in which local authorities can use their capital receipts, which it is widely reported will be uppermost in the Chancellor's mind when he reaches for his axe on public spending during the next few weeks.
  The speeches said nothing about the impact of rate-capping measures on the ability of local authorities properly to maintain and repair their housing stocks, which are too often inadequately maintained and in desperate need of attention. The speeches said nothing about the way in which the Government have manipulated the subsidy system for public housing so that local authority housing revenue accounts are now in surplus, with tenants paying enormously high rents to subsidise the ratepayers of those areas. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet), who claims with surprising pride to have been a member of Wandsworth borough council, should consider the rents that tenants in Wandsworth must pay and the inadequate services that they receive in return. He should perhaps think about their needs as well as those of others whom the Wandsworth council claims to serve.
  None of the major housing problems which face people in my constituency were mentioned in the Queen's Speech or in any of the Government speeches. However, one measure is reported in the Queen's Speech which will affect housing in my constituency — the proposal to abolish the GLC. There are many reasons why I passionately oppose the Government's intentions in this respect, but I wish to dwell on the specific area of housing and the GLC's remaining housing responsibilities which will be dismembered if it goes.
  One must also remember that, through using their Back Benchers to table amendments to the Greater London Council (Money) Bill, the Government have already profoundly affected much of the capital housing work scheduled by the GLC around London and in my constituency. Just a week ago at a tenants' meeting, I was asked what had happened to the environmental improvement work on an estate which was supposed to begin this year. The answer was that that work which had been arrived at in concert with the tenants — and to which they are still looking forward — fell with the changes to that Bill which were introduced by Conservative Members.
  192
  If the GLC goes, many other problems will come in train. I want to ask five specific questions, which I know the Secretary of State for Transport will be unable to answer. He is even unable to answer questions on transport, but these questions on housing will pose an even greater problem for him. I therefore ask him to pass them on to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I hope that I shall receive answers.
  How will access to the seaside and country homes which the GLC at present owns outside London be guaranteed for Londoners after the GLC goes? Many elderly people in my constituency and elsewhere in London will be deprived of a real opportunity if no guarantees are given about access to that available accommodation.
  Secondly, what will happen to the housing investment programme allocation which is at present made available to the GLC from the Government and used for the transferred ex-GLC housing stock in the various boroughs? Will the borough allocations be increased accordingly if the GLC goes?
  Thirdly, what role will be played by the borough councils or anyone after the disappearance of the GLC to meet the needs of the single homeless in London, when only the GLC and a handful of borough councils are at present tackling the real problems that exist? At present, the GLC spends more money in London than the Government do in the country as a whole in the funding of hostels for single homeless people and the running expenses of providing that desperately needed accommodation. What will happen to that accommodation and the needs of those people when the GLC goes?
  Fourthly, what will happen to the housing research role, as well as to housing needs and conditions in London, when the GLC goes?
  Fifthly, what will happen to the need for strategic planning of housing resources in London as a whole? That highlights as a microcosm the whole problem of the abolition of a cross-London authority which at present can look at things on a London-wide basis. If all the powers and decision-making functions of the GLC are transferred downwards to the boroughs or outwards to quangos or joint boards, no elected authority will be carrying out any strategic planning work for the capital city.
  Those five questions highlight the problems which will face the boroughs and people in housing need in London if the abolition of the GLC goes ahead. This proposal will be deeply damaging to the needs of the people of London and my constituency. It will heap greater injustice on top of the existing unfairness of the Government's housing policies. Just like housing policy as a whole, it will ignore completely the needs of the homeless, the badly housed, those who are patiently waiting for accommodation and even the needs of owner-occupiers who are suffering from problems in accommodation which they purchased and which is now proving less than ideal.
  The Government's policies on housing and the abolition of the GLC completely ignore the needs of Londoners, my constituents and the people for whom the Government are supposed to be working.
  8.56 pm
  Sir Ian Percival: The temptation to reply to some of the spurious and tendentious propositions of Opposition Members is almost irresistible, but I have two good reasons for resisting it. One is time, and the other is

  193
  that I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will answer the five questions put by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) together with all the other points that have been raised.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) is not in his place. It is not that I wish to answer all his points about doom and gloom— we have differed about those often enough—but rather that I share his concern about the increase in heroin taking in that area. All of us, including the Government, have a great responsibility to do what we can to fight it, but I totally repudiate the idea that that increase is the Government's responsibility.
  I welcome the delightful sentence—the shortest but most important—in the Queen's Speech, which reads:
  "A Bill will be introduced to abolish the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils".
  Much has been said about the GLC, but not so much about the metropolitan county councils. As my right hon. Friend knows, we in Southport greatly welcome this commitment. We look forward greatly to the promised early return to a situation in which our district is the unit of local government for us, and we are responsible directly to our constituents, on the one hand, and to the Secretary of State, on the other. We are looking forward to getting this burden off our backs. My right hon. Friend will have the full support of my constituency, and my full support as the representative of it, in the passage of the Bill.
  Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave some details of the amount of money being spent by the GLC in fighting a political battle at the expense of the ratepayer. I wish to draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the fact that the Merseyside county council is doing the same thing. I do not know how much it is spending, as I do not have the figures, but we all know that a full-page advertisement in a daily newspaper costs a lot of money. My constituents find it difficult enough to find money that the Merseyside county council is spending more or less with propriety. They consider it outrageous, and so do I, that they should now be called upon to find extra money to finance this political campaign.
  I dare say that the Merseyside county council has taken legal advice and has a way of avoiding the responsibility. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to take notice of the fact that the Merseyside county council is spending money in the same way as the GLC. Will they make inquiries as to how much the council is spending and whether it is legitimate expenditure that the council can incur within the law?
  With those few words, I wish my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench the best of luck with the Bill, and I hope that we get it through very soon.
  Mr. Penhaligon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Our debate today has not been specific. I have been here for 10 years and have witnessed several debates on the Queen's Speech, and I know that they are not specific in content. However, I should appreciate some guidance as to when a party polling some 4 million votes was not given one second in such a debate, despite the fact that the hon. Member who was to be the spokesman has been here throughout the debate and would have liked a chance to argue the rural transport case, which the Secretary of State for Transport will no doubt admit has not been aired throughout today's debate. That seems a
  194
  tragedy, and I suspect that rural transport will affect more people than the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I understand the hon. Gentleman's resentment, and I regret that he was not able to catch my eye. He would have been able to had some hon. Members made rather shorter speeches than they did. For hon. Members to make speeches of 20 minutes when other hon. Members are waiting to speak is not being fair, and I hope that hon. Members will bear it in mind, but I have to take many factors into account when deciding which hon. Members I shall call.
  Mr. Penhaligon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I recognise your difficulty, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but can you confirm that the Labour party was given 30 minutes to open the debate and will have 30 minutes to close it, whereas the alliance opposition's contribution to the debate has been 13 minutes?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot enter into such a dialogue with any hon. Member. The facts will be obvious both from what the Doorkeeper records and from what will be printed in the Official Report tomorrow morning.
  9.2 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: When the present Government were in opposition, before 1979, they specialised in producing a particular kind of fiction, which was called, in general terms, "a number of transport reports". The Secretary of State for Transport was involved in many of the discussions that took place then, not necessarily on transport, but on attempts to turn the clock back in legislation on practically every subject.
  It is important to note, in a Queen's Speech that has two major innovations on transport, that it is the Secretary of State for Transport who believes most fervently that we should privatise public transport. I agree that the Secretary of State understands public transport. I do not accept the theory that he believes that public transport is something that brings the gardeners to the door of the estate. I know that he knows that it is something of importance to every one of us.
  However, many of the Secretary of State's views have a slightly Marie Antoinette aspect. For example, he appears to be saying, through the Queen's Speech that even if there are no buses, one can always take a taxi. The changes that he is proposing have one thing in common with many of the Bills that he has already brought before the House as Secretary of State for Transport. That is that this massive change to do with deregulation of public transport, the creation of a cowboys' charter, the wrecking of the National Bus Company, are all based on a report that was put together by the Adam Smith Institute. The main contributor to that report was a man whose private bus company went bankrupt. That sums up the Government's entire attitude towards public transport.
  First, we have a White Paper on buses. Secondly, we are told that legislation will be brought in based entirely on trial areas. Therefore, it is important that we should look at the whole programme of trial areas and try to understand how it is that the Government can possibly have come to the conclusion, after five years of chipping away at the foundations of public transport, that this will be the year of the great give-away. In effect, the Secretary

  195
  of State is going to hand over control of public transport to anybody who thinks that they can run it on the basis of making a quick buck here and there.
  The main experimental evidence for the White Paper plans was based, after the Transport Act 1980, on 10 local authorities which were to consider the idea of new trial means of transport. Only three authorities — Devon, Hereford and Norfolk — set up schemes. Hereford decided to scrap all subsidies and then no company tendered for any of the 53 rural routes and only four operators came forward, one of which had its licence revoked. A second company had its licence limited before it was renewed.
  In Norfolk, the subsidies were kept but there was little change. The Transport Road Research laboratory — a Government laboratory—said:
  "it is clear that the changes are due to financial restriction and not to deregulation."
  The Eastern Counties bus company, which is part of the National Bus Company and still the major provider of bus transport in Norfolk, put up its fares 10 per cent. and cut its services.
  The third area to run a trial was Devon. Of that experiment, the White Paper says:
  "results of this exercise were disappointing, with substantial reductions in services not leading to the anticipated savings in revenue support."
  In other words, of the three experimental areas, which were being used as an excuse for a major change, not one could produce evidence of the benefits to anybody that we are told will follow from this massive change.
  The Federation of Public Passenger Transport Employers said that the Hereford price cuts would produce instability in transport because they ignored the need for cash to buy new buses and to replace existing stock. It suggests that the reality of the economics is that there will need to be a 25 per cent. increase in fares if the company is to remain viable.
  We should look at some other aspects of those experiments, because they are instructive. Hereford showed the dangers of what happens when private enterprise comes in looking not for the public service element but for a way of making easy money.
  When the Flashes company lost its licence, 47 maintenance defects were discovered in its existing transport. Twenty-seven of those defects were immediate, which means that they could have had an effect upon any one of the buses at any moment — buses that are carrying members of the public.
  The Traffic Commissioners — the arbiters of those decisions—will now be merged with the road haulage licensors. On 12 July, the Minister of State told Transport 2000 at a press conference that there would not be any extra financial problems because the manpower involved would be less than it is at present.
  We should understand the effect of the end of road licensing. In the Transport Act 1980, coaches on journeys over 30 miles were freed from regulations. The National Bus Company miles came down from 543 million to 274 million between 1980 and 1982.
  The new scheme extends those 1980 requirements to give a licence to anyone who wants one as long as it is not against the public interest. But there are very grave doubts about whether that definition will be adhered to. It is highly likely that there will not be adequate restrictions on
  196
  the driver's hours. We have already been told that there could be a fiftyfold increase in the number of operators. However, that may be an initial reaction and there is no evidence whatever that that number of companies will remain viable in the long run.
  It is certain that, if there are to be fewer people monitoring the safety records, it will be very difficult to enforce safety standards. More important, competition in profitable areas means that the viability of a company can be undercut by having to compete on routes on which it would normally expect to make money. Inevitably all the companies will go for those routes that are already popular and other areas such as rural transport will be affected disastrously.
  The Government seem to believe that there is, in some odd way, a political reason for doing away with cross-subsidisation. Anyone who has anything to do with transport knows very well that not only bus operators but other transport authorities rely heavily on the cross-subsidisation between one service and another in order to balance their books. The Government do not accept that. They oppose cross-subsidy from one route to another, but they never discuss, in any sense, the cross-subsidy that takes place between one type of fare and another. What about the cross-subsidisation between child and adult fares, weekend and weekday fares or between the fares for those who travel in the rush hour and those who travel during off-peak hours?
  Are we to believe that those who want to travel on less popular services at more difficult hours, or those who are schoolchildren will not in future be entitled to any form of adequate bus service? Deregulation would allow an operator to run buses just in the rush hour. Even in the experimental areas we saw the result of that — great competition on particular routes but hardly any attempt to provide services in rural areas.
  It is ironic that the Government, who for many years have pretended to represent the rural communities, should now make a consistent and concerted attack upon the services in those areas. A large part of my constituency relies heavily on rural buses and those who live in the villages will now find themselves deprived of even their present fairly inadequate service. The Crossville bus company has estimated that at present it has 900 vehicles, but if this Bill is enacted, that number will fall to 300. The effect on the villages in rural Cheshire will be dramatic. Yet there is no attempt to discuss the implications, or even the wishes of the people in those areas.
  I must tell the Secretary of State that it is not just Labour party councillors who are concerned about the provision of rural transport, but also the National Federation of Women's Institutes, parish councillors and many of the elected representatives who are themselves members of the Conservative party. They have made it plain that they think that the scheme is incredibly crazy and that they would not wish to see it enacted in any circumstances.
  Certain authorities have proved that the way to make transport services effective is to run them as fully integrated services. The Tyne and Wear metro service works efficiently because it links buses with a metro. This year the Select Committee on Transport concluded—
  Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It might be helpful, Sir, if you took this opportunity to reiterate what Mr. Deputy Speaker said

  197
  just before you resumed the Chair — that, if hon. Members would limit their speeches to a reasonable length, many more hon. Members could be called.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) limited his remarks to 13 minutes. If the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) took the same time, other hon. Members could be called to speak before the debate ends.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman, who is a Whip, will understand that a limit has never been put on Front-Bench speeches.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The debate started nearly an hour late because of spurious points of order. Those of us who care about rural transport find such childish behaviour demonstrative of the level of politics in which the alliance indulges.
  What do the Government intend to do about concessionary fares? Many elderly people can travel away from home only because they have concessionary bus passes. The different schemes operated by the various councils are already causing difficulty.
  There is a ritual mention in the Queen's Speech of some concessionary fare system for the elderly and disabled, but no thought has been given to how it will be financed. Handing tokens to elderly people to be used on any bus that comes along is unreasonable. Concessionary fares already cause difficulties between authorities because of the different fares charged. There is no evidence that the Government have thought about the scheme so that private operators can provide suitable transport for the elderly.
  The sufferers will be not only the disabled and those most in need of contact with shops and social facilities, but those who need transport to take their children to school and the schoolchildren themselves. London Regional Transport has already secretly decided to raise children's fares by 50 per cent. If that is repeated throughout the country, those most in need will be penalised under an unworkable scheme.
  The rural areas will be so badly hit that the Government have decided that they must make a gesture in their direction. They suggest a donation of £1 million for special work. The National Federation of Women's Institutes, not known for its Socialist views, said that this represented no more than 100 minibuses. Those buses would have to provide across the country the level of transport now provided by a nationalised industry.
  The second idea is that a subsidy of £20 million should be given during the first transitional year and that this should be reduced to £15 million in the second year, £10 million in the third, £5 million in the fourth and then be phased out. There is no hard and fast evidence that even such sums would compensate for the changes that the bus companies will have to accept under the new legislation.
  The selling off of the National Bus Company is not only a devastating change for those who use public transport; it has never been argued, and it has no logic. The Transport Act 1982 made attempts to undermine the National Bus Company, but it failed. The operating profits of the company are now £47 million. In response, the Government have decided to break up the National Bus Company. Having broken it up, they intend to sell off the constituent parts. The stockbrokers Grieveson Grant and Co. have said that this would produce the least cash for the Government of all their give-away schemes. As usual,
  198
  they will flog off any national asset that they find, but in this instance they will not even receive a suitable sum in return.
  Cross-subsidisation will disappear and services which are unprofitable but which are needed by many, will go when the National Bus Company is broken up. There is no reason for the change proposed. The NBC is not a burden on the Government. It receives 14 per cent. of relevent subsidies but it runs 39 per cent. of the country's buses. The return on capital invested is 17 per cent.— one that many Conservative business men would be happy to have. The NBC received £140 million in subsidy but £38 million of that was for concessionary fares. We have already been told by the Government that the subsidy for concessionary fares will not be cut. If we subtract the £57 million of historic debts, we find that £45 million is left.
  There is no logic in destroying an efficient and useful service for sheer and unimaginative dogma. The NBC's productivity increased per employee from 11,600 miles per employee in 1982 to 11,900 in 1983. However, none of these facts concerns the Government. Their attitude is that, if a nationalised company works, is efficient and provides a service, it is their task to destroy it.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will the hon. Lady comment on the statement by Lord Shepherd, the chairman of the National Bus Company, on cross-subsidisation? He said in the NBC's most recent report:
  "In many areas cross-subsidy is being taken to the point where the benefits obtained in meeting certain social objectives have been outweighed by the long-term damage being inflicted on the future performance of routes now suffering from overpricing and going into premature decline."
  Mrs. Dunwoody: That does not destroy the case for cross-subsidisation. The hon. Gentleman will rapidly find in his constituency that those who do not live on the most populated routes will explain the theory of cross-subsidisation to him in considerable detail once the proposed legislation is implemented.
  The district councils will be very much affected by the proposed change in the law. They will be forced to turn their bus operations into private companies. Having done so, they will probably be sold off as independent parts. If not, the councils will still have to tender for any non-profitable routes. The metropolitan counties will first form passenger transport authorities, which will replace the present passenger transport executives, and then they will have to make plans to break up the companies that they have created. That will be incredibly inefficient and expensive as well as unacceptable.
  If the Secretary of State thinks that it is only for dogmatic reasons that we oppose the proposed changes, I remind him of some of the responses of other interested parties. The National Bus Company has stated:
  "deregulation will increase this level of inadequacy to grotesque levels."
  The National Federation of Women's Organisations reports:
  "we are disturbed that legislation to deregulate almost the entire bus industry is being based on three small experiments."
  It is the opinion of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that we
  "risk wasteful competition in the profitable areas and reduced services elsewhere."
  What are the Government's answers to these complaints? They say, in effect, "If you do not have buses you must use taxis." They intend to increase the number

  199
  taxis plying for hire and they will allow separate fares to be charged for carrying more than one passenger. In case anyone imagines that that will meet with the approval of taxi drivers, I quote what was said by John Oswell, secretary of the National Federation of Taxicab Associations. He said:
  "This will be a disaster for the taxi trade. The Government will propose provisions to relax progressively restrictions on the numbers of taxis which operate in some areas".
  The economics of the proposal is so bizarre that cabs which cost 95p per mile to run will replace buses which cost 16p per mile. We have to remember that 75 per cent. of the people cannot afford to travel by taxi, and with a growing number of unemployed it is clear that yet again we are faced with a bizarre suggestion.
  Unfortunately, the proposed changes will not only affect the bus industry. On 16 October the Government announced that the TSG would no longer be available. The suggestion is that, somehow or other, in future the cash will come from local authorities' rate support grants.
  Throughout the debate we have heard of the impossibility of local authorities being able to maintain their existing levels of services, whether in housing, social services or education. Yet now we are told that there is no need to worry, that we can do away with the transport subsidy, and that in future the money will come from the rate support grant. What utter, stinking hypocrisy. With rate capping there will be no possibility whatever of local authorities replacing the money—
  Mr. Hayward rose—
  Mr. Speaker: "Stinking" is not an unparliamentary word, if that is what the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) was about to say.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: It may not be unparliamentary but, by goodness, it goes home. The Government intend to rate-cap authorities to such an extent that there will be no question of the revenue being made up to provide the bus and rail services—and the effect will be immediate.
  In 1983, British Rail received £80 million from the TSG in the metropolitan areas. That is 10 per cent. of the money that British Rail needs to run its services. In Manchester, it is now expected that as a result there will be a cut of 25 per cent. in rail services. Those who live in the greater Manchester area will feel the immediate effect. It will be yet another nail in the economics of British Rail.
  By contrast, we know what the Labour party can do when it is given the opportunity to provide the services needed by the general public. London Transport officers calculated that an extra £10 million subsidy in 1985–86 would produce £12·5 million benefits in fares. When the fares on the underground were reduced by 25 percent., the use of the services increased very considerably. In addition there were 3,000 fewer accidents than in a normal year, and there was an 8 per cent. fall in the use of cars.
  It is extraordinary that a party which cares so much about road transport never makes public the fact that if the underground services and the bus services are running efficiently, it is far easier for drivers to find room on the roads to use their vehicles.
  Tyne and Wear produced a 63·7 million increase in passenger journeys. It demonstrates that the public want efficient transport and will use it when it is at very low rates. Increasingly they have shown their response to
  200
  an imaginative fares policy. South Yorkshire put another 3 million passengers on to its buses by using a low fare structure.
  The cuts in the metropolitan county grants will have a direct effect. Tyne and Wear reports that the recent changes will mean a 25 to 30 per cent. cut in the next three years. There will be a cut of 25 per cent. of 99 million passenger boardings over the network. Redundancy pay for the staff who lose their jobs will amount to £8 million. All those effects come from a desire to cut subsidies from £29·5 million to £15·8 million.
  Let the Government tell us tonight what they intend to do about concessionary fares. Let us hear from them how they genuinely think this hotchpotch of nonsense can protect the elderly, the young or those who at present need the concessionary fare system. Above all, let them tell us how they justify an idea that will deprive the rural areas of any sort of efficient bus service, make many of the town services unviable and lead in a very short time to the decimation of a system of public transport that has been the pride of many people in this country.
  American companies have come here from Dallas to look at the level of service provided in areas such as Tyne and Wear. What will the Secretary of State say to them? Will it be: "We are very sorry, the Conservative Government have at last admitted that they care little for the old or for those who do not have their own cars, and even less for the provision of an efficient public transport system."?
  9.31 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): It is my pleasant duty to congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and welcome her to her new responsibilities in transport on the Opposition Front Bench. She is an old enemy and an old friend. I am sure that we shall have many pleasant teach-ins arranged for her on transport matters.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am sure that the Secretary of State will learn.
  Mr. Ridley: I gather that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will remain, which means that we shall have two National Union of Railwaymen-sponsored Front Bench spokesmen on transport. Having listened to the hon. Lady's speech, I must tell her that I wanted to go to Birmingham, and she has taken me to Crewe.
  The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made an earnest and sincere speech at the opening of the debate. I noted with approval the care that he took to dissociate himself from the imprudent comments about selective illegality by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) compounded the error by suggesting that local government was put in a position in which it had to break one law or another. I do not think that we can have selective illegality. I say to the hon. Member for Bootle that many councils have succeeded, in equally difficult circumstances, in living within their means. There is no cause for overspending to maintain the law.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Copeland on being firm enough at least to go that far with his colleagues. I am also pleased that he was able to welcome the inquiry that the Government propose to hold into the current

  201
  practices and procedures of local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will shortly consult him and representatives of the alliance on the way in which that inquiry will proceed. However, the House will not expect me to agree with the remainder of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. For example, with regard to the abolition Bill, he sought to cast doubt on the savings that will be made with the dissappearance of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House this afternoon that the savings from elimination of duplication alone will be substantial, but his more detailed estimate will be available when the Bill is published.
  I should like to underline what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) said, that the savings from political spending alone will be pretty considerable. I shall quote two figures for savings that will be made in transport. This year, the GLC is giving £122,000 to an organisation called Transport for an Improved City and £235,480 to an organisation called Capital. These organisations indulge in scaremongering to try to deceive Londoners about the Government's intentions on transport. Saving such expenditure will be a bonus.
  It is also odd that the Opposition should place so much stress on the need for an inquiry into our policy of abolition. When the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was Opposition spokesman on the environment, speaking at the 1983 local government conference he said—as my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) has reminded us:
  "We shall therefore legislate to create unitary district authorities which will be responsible for all of the functions in their area that they can sensibly undertake".
  My hon. Friend did not complete the quotation. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
  "We shall set up no more inquiries. We shall legislate".
  How can it be right for the Labour party to say that it will make its local government reforms without further inquiries, but to insist that the Government should have an inquiry? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport and my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and for Surbiton, as well as others of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches, feel that the time has come to proceed with the Bill. They feel that we should not waste any more time.
  The hon. Member for Copeland referred to the GLC proposal for a lorry ban. As I have said, that is a decision of a quite different order. It is an administrative decision. Many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn), are strongly opposed to it. However, it is not an issue on which the House will be asked to legislate; it is an administrative decision in which the House will have no say. It must be right that in decisions not to be taken by the House there should be public inquiry procedures. I have repeatedly told the GLC that a public inquiry will provide a well-established democratic way of subjecting such a major proposal to impartial assessment by an independent inspector. If the Government can hold proper public inquiries for road schemes, why should not the GLC do so on a proposal of such importance? When I challenged the hon. Member for Copeland, he said that the Opposition are all in favour of holding public inquiries on matters such as that. Will he now write to the GLC and say that, as spokesman for the
  202
  Labour party, he believes that there should be a public inquiry so that all the facts and figures may be properly considered and the costs and benefits properly analysed?
  Finally, we have heard, yet again, complaints about increased centralisation and the breakdown of the relationship between central Government and local government as a result of rate limitation. May I correct those assertions? It is the consensus that has broken down —the convention accepted by local authorities in the past that in a unitary rather than a federal state, central Government are entitled to lay down financial guidelines within which local government operates. It was because certain extravagant and high-spending authorities had flouted that convention that rate limitation became necessary. Within the overall expenditure levels set for rate-limited authorities, it will remain for locally elected councillors to decide on priorities within and between services. There is no question of a Whitehall takeover.
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not leave the subject of local government without answering my specific question.
  Mr. Ridley: I have the answer to the specific question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg). The Government are actively assessing the best way forward in the difficult matter he raised, which concerns a long-established provision in planning law affecting different interests in different ways. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction is considering the matter and will be in touch with my hon. Friend.
  My right hon. Friend has explained to the House why the Government consider that the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils—an unnecessary and extravagant tier of local government—will enable the services that they provide, or in some cases fail to provide, to be more economically and efficiently provided. That is particularly true of transport services. On the highways and traffic management side there is substantial duplication. The London boroughs and most of the metropolitan districts have considerable and long experience in these matters. They often resent the pettifogging interference of the upper-tier authorities. That is an area in which I, too, expect substantial manpower savings, about which the House will hear in due course
  Of course there will be a need for co-operation among the boroughs and districts to ensure that their roads programmes and traffic management policies are sensibly co-ordinated. I see no reason to doubt that the type of cooperation will be the normal rule, although I shall have reserve powers to ensure that wider traffic interests are taken into account. I think that perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) gives us too much credit for honesty in that respect. I suspect that those powers will seldom, if ever, be necessary.
  In the metropolitan counties we accept the need to provide a continuing mechanism for decisions on a county-wide basis—for instance, on the provision of subsidy for socially necessary but unprofitable services. That is why we shall provide for joint passenger authorities with members appointed by the constituent districts. That reverts to the previous arrangements which worked perfectly satisfactorily. Those joint boards are not quangos. They will consist of district councillors directly responsible to their own councils, and so, in turn, to the ratepayers.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will there be concessionary fares?
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member keeps talking about concessionary fares. The arrangements whereby concessionary fares are paid at the discretion of local authorities will remain untouched. Throughout the abolition process and whatever I seek to do about bus policy, it will remain for them to do what they think is right about concessionary fares.
  Mr. Penhaligon: In some rural areas there are a number of private entrepreneurs who run, with little or no subsidy, small networks which provide a good and efficient service. They are terrified that they are about to lose their mini-monopoly. Is there any risk that in the legislation the operators will lose the monopoly and that these small businesses that have served the community well will suddenly find themselves in enormous financial difficulties?
  Mr. Ridley: I shall be saying a great deal about buses and I should like to answer the hon. Gentleman's question when I reach that point.
  The Government have been pursuing a consistent policy of opening transport services to competition. The interests of the consumer must come first. He must have freedom of choice. Competition ensures that the consumer can choose the best services and the best prices. It also has the effect of forcing operators to provide services at keen fares. We accept competition in other areas; why not in transport?
  The Labour Government made the road haulage industry fully competitive. In 1980, long-distance express bus services were deregulated. The predicted disasters did not happen. In fact, the number of long-distance coach services has increased by 50 per cent. Standards have increased and fares have gone down by an average of 40 per cent. in real terms. There has been no jeopardising of safety standards.
  The Government have also set about providing competition in air services wherever competition can be fair and Britain's interests are not prejudiced. Hon. Members are aware of the dramatic improvement in domestic services that competition has brought about. The north Atlantic, Hong Kong and Holland are examples. When we achieved a liberal air regime with the Dutch, fares came down by one third and demand increased. It was good for all. We are determined to bring competition into all European air travel as fast as we can. Our White Paper on civil aviation is designed to ensure that we will have the maximum number of healthy competitors as we open these markets.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) spoke at length about airports policy. I do not have time to discuss airports policy today, but I suspect that the House will return to the subject on several occasions. Indeed, there will probably be plenty of opportunities in the future to discuss the air industry.
  We are also moving to a more competitive environment for ports. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) referred to the Trent wharves. I assure him that the Department welcomes investment in port facilities wherever they occur and there are no controls that we seek to place on them. I noted his comments about the planning difficulties encountered by his constituents and I will relay them to my right hon.
  204
  Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who seem to be most concerned. We will certainly see what we can do to help.
  In shipping, we believe that we must do everything possible to maintain a fair, competitive international market. We face problems of subsidy and protectionism all over the world and our shipping industry is having an extremely difficult time. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is at this very moment addressing a dinner of the General Council of British Shipping. He has some hopeful things to say and much evidence of what the Government have done to try to help that industry.
  I never understand why the Opposition cannot see, after all that I have said, the clear and obvious benefits that competition brings. The results in transport alone are quite dramatic. Yet the Opposition oppose the extension of competition every time, as we heard today from the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Crewe and Nantwich. Once more, we shall have to take the Labour party through the well-rehearsed arguments that it is the customer who matters, not the operators, and that competition is what helps the customer. One day the Opposition will realise that the reason for their ever-shrinking base of electoral support is that they have always put the unions before the customers, and they are still doing it even now.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to quote the views of Viscount Ridley on the proposed changes? Is he aware that that previous chairman of a county council said that the scheme was totally unacceptable?
  Mr. Ridley: The extent to which the Opposition increasingly rely on the other place to save their bacon never ceases to amaze me.
  Returning to the buses, in the light of the undoubted benefits that flow from competition the Government have brought in proposals for stage buses. Throughout our many and long debates on the legislation the House should remember that it is the ratepayers and passengers who will benefit from the policy, and that is the reason for it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East welcomed our policy and I am grateful for that, but he wondered why there was such a short time for consultation. There have been seven consultative documents. I will send copies of the relevant ones to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich as clearly she has not read them. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East should not forget that there will also be a very long Committee stage, which is probably the best form of consultation. Moreover, a balance must be struck between consultation and uncertainty in the industry. The sooner these matters are brought into effect, the sooner benefits will flow and the better it will be.
  Regarding the bus industry, first, it is a fact that revenue support for the industry was increased from £10 million in 1972 to more than £500 million in 1982. Secondly, the unit costs of the bus industry in real terms have increased by about 20 per cent. over the same period. Thirdly, the costs of the private sector are at least 30 to 40 per cent. below the costs of public sector operators. As the White Paper says:
  "Leaving London aside, if costs were to fall by 15 per cent. —which is less than the increase since 1970 in the unit costs of public sector operators—the saving would be over £200 million a year."

  205
  That compares with the total cost of revenue support outside London of about £350 million.
  Therefore, if we can achieve those potential cost reductions, we can do with less subsidy, while providing similar levels of service and benefiting the passenger. Moreover, if we bring fares down, patronage will increase, leading to more income from the fare box, not less. Experience tells us that standards of service will also improve.
  The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich talked about cross-subsidy. I object to cross-subsidy because it caused excessively high fares on many busy routes, as one of my hon. Friends pointed out when he quoted Lord Shepherd. That caused a loss of passengers and, therefore, a loss of income to the fare box, and further decline. This point will appeal to the hon. Lady.
  Cross-subsidy is also unfair. I suspect that the direction of the flows of cross-subsidy in the bus industry are from the industrial north to the rural south. They are certainly from the city centre to the suburbs, and are probably from urban areas to rural areas. They are, therefore, from the poor to the rich. I never realised that the hon. Lady was in favour of a policy of hidden cross-subsidies from the poor to the rich. That is exactly what she seeks to defend. Perhaps she has more to learn about the bus industry than she thinks.
  I wish to draw attention to the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for contracting-out local authority services. They were warmly welcomed by my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth. East and for Glanford and Scunthorpe. They are important proposals. Vehicle maintenance, refuse collection and cleaning will have to be put out to tender and the lowest offer will have to be accepted. Whether local authority buses are PTEs or municipal bus companies, local authorities will be asked to put their bus operations at arm's length and invite tenders for providing services on uneconomic routes. That is merely an extension of the principle of the direct labour organisations, which have been with us for three years.
  I entirely accept the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), who said that competition between municipal operators when they are at arm's length in a public limited company, the private sector and parts of the National Bus Company must be on all fours and must be fair. Our careful working out of the timetable necessary under the forthcoming Transport Bill will be designed to get the best possible fairness in the system.
  My hon. Friend asked about quality control enforcement, and I again draw his attention to the White Paper. Extra resources will be provided to ensure that quality control is stiffened in relation to vehicle safety and the mechanical condition of vehicles and in relation to the behaviour of drivers on the road to ensure that they do not do silly, dangerous or selfish things. It will be possible to remove the licence of an operator who refuses to behave sensibly on the road. Fears about safety and conduct will be assuaged by what we intend to do, and I can develop those points in Committee.
  Mr. Penhaligon: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Ridley: I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's point. He has intervened three times to ask questions, but I knew exactly what the questions were and would have
  206
  answered them anyway. His questions are so obvious that they would have been answered whether or not he had been here.
  In rural areas, tendering for uneconomic services will provide the same services for less money or more services for the same money. The trial area of Hereford and Worcester, which the hon. Lady got completely wrong — I advise her again to do her homework — demonstrated that that principle is true. With a roughly similar service provision, annual subsidy to the bus operators in the trial area fell by 38 per cent.; fares fell dramatically, in some cases by as much as 50 per cent.; and the standard of service was maintained. Therefore, we have the evidence of what would happen in rural areas, and the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) should note that. I have never claimed that the experience of Hereford and Worcester was applicable to municipal and metropolitan areas, but that is the evidence for rural areas. I invite hon. Members to visit Hereford and Worcester and to talk not only to the county council but to the people on the streets, who would tell them that if anyone removed their regime of bus services they would be furious.
  Other advantages will come to the rural areas. Deregulation will also bring new opportunities to try new types of service, including shared taxis. Despite the disparaging remarks of the hon. Member for Crewe, more poor people and women are travelling by taxi, and they will be able to travel more cheaply if the taxis can be shared.
  Mr. Hayward: Will my right hon. Friend lend one of the taxis to Labour Back-Bench Members, who would fit easily into one this evening? They are displaying their opposition to the Government's proposals by being represented by only three hon. Members.
  Mr. Ridley: They would certainly qualify for an innovation grant, since their ideas are as stale and as old-fashioned as can be.
  In the rural areas we shall have the benefit of competition to reduce subsidies, as happened in Hereford and Worcester. There will also be an innovation grant, and we can examine the results of shared taxis and minibuses. I also mention the £20 million transitional rural bus grant. All those factors, together with the continuing resources of county councils, in future through the GREA system rather than the transport supplementary grant system, will mean that the ability of rural areas to provide services will be enhanced. The hon. Lady did not get that point right, but she need do only a little homework to discover that that will be the case. We can forget this rubbish about decimating rural bus services, and should acknowledge the fact that the Government's proposals are designed to improve, and will succeed in improving, rural bus services.
  The Government's policy is to
  "encourage the competition which in some—though not all—industries promotes competition and holds down prices, provide the customer—again in some though not all industries—with the alternative choices which create consumer power; ensure that industrial power and commercial influence are diffused in a way which prevents the tyranny and inefficiency of either massive state ownership or the domination of unaccountable private monopolies".

  207
  Those were the words of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), spoken on 16 October 1984—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  Stranmillis College Belfast
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
  10 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This is the first occasion that I have used the opportunities afforded by the Adjournment debate to raise a matter affecting an individual—one of my constituents. I make no apology for doing so, because in the last resort all representations which hon. Members make on behalf of constituents to Ministers ultimately rest on the assumption of an opportunity on the Floor of the House to bring considerations to the attention of the House and of the Minister in a more formal manner.
  In any case, I think it would be agreed that what is involved here is a difficult and important matter of administrative judgment. I would not have been so convinced that it deserved to be raised but for the judgment of someone well versed in the area concerned, for whose opinion I have a great respect, who described the administrative decision that I wish to challenge tonight as "the only case in which" he
  "felt that justice had not been done in his 14 years of dealing with the Department."
  I therefore hope that the Minister — although he has twice and personally reconsidered the background to this decision — will feel that before I sit down I have provided him with sufficient reason for reviewing it yet again. I am sure that he will do so with an open mind.
  Stranmillis college, in the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), is unique and outstanding among all the colleges of education in the United Kingdom. It occupies a unique position in the educational life of Belfast and the whole Province of Ulster, and is not strictly comparable with any other institution going under the same description in any part of the United Kingdom. It is indeed this unique nature of Stranmillis college which is the background to the administrative problem which, I suggest, was wrongly resolved in 1975–76.
  It was in those years that the recommendations of the Houghton committee were applied to salary scales for staff in colleges of education. In Great Britain, and consequently by parity in Northern Ireland, the recommendations of the Houghton report were applied by way of classifying departments of education into six grades, rising by size from grade I up to grade VI, which comprised departments counting at least 900 units.
  I should perhaps explain that the term "unit" is very much a term of art. It is more than a simple counting of heads of students; it is a composite statistical convention designed to convey in comparable terms the volume of work which is done in a department of education. The problem with which the Minister and I have been grappling was the manner in which grade VI was applied to the headship of the department of education in Stranmillis college.
  In the application of the Houghton committee's recommendations it was at all times recognised that the relevant local education authority should have discretion in the light of exceptional circumstances to modify upwards the scales set out. The exceptional circumstances where the scales were modified in grades lower than grade VI obviously did not include excessive size, because the

  209
  automatic consequence of excessive size in terms of units of a department in any of the lower grades—I to V—would be its reclassification to a higher grade.
  Nevertheless, the same provision was expressly made in the terms applied on the mainland also to grade VI. The terms were:
  "Where the local education authority consider that in the special circumstances of a particular case of a Head of Department Grade VI the maximum prescribed above is not adequate, the authority may, in agreement with the Secretary of State, extend the scale to such higher maximum as they deem appropriate."
  The question that I am putting before the House concerns the use of that discretion to award a higher scale in the case of a grade VI department, being a department of over 900 units, namely, the education department in Stranmillis college.
  The number of units on the same reckoning appropriate to the department at Stranmillis was 1,610. In other words, it was immensely in excess, in size and importance, of the minimum size for a department to be graded grade VI. The question is whether the discretion should not have been so exercised as to apply to Stranmillis a higher scale appropriate to a so much larger load than the minimum load for grade VI as is indicated by the figure that I have just given to the House.
  The answer must clearly turn—I am at one with the Minister in believing this—on essential comparability between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The Minister told me that his Department had considered whether it should break away from the principles applied in Great Britain and go it alone. I believe, and I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree, that the Minister was right to stick to the principle of parity as far as it could be applied. My only quarrel with the Minister, and the point on which I make my submission to him, is that the manner in which the principle of parity with Great Britain was applied was, in the circumstances unreasonable.
  I inquired of the Minister what was the evidence for Departments in Great Britain of sizes above 900 units and, to my great surprise, the Minister told me that the figure was "not readily available". Yet that is the crucial figure, because if it should turn out that on the mainland the size of departments in grade VI is commonly only a little above the number of minimum of 900, then the case, on sheer grounds of size, for a special scale being applied to Stranmillis with its 1,610 units, is irresistible.
  However, there must evidently have been figures available, as I am told that the figure for the next largest department identified in grade VI after Stranmillis at the time when the comparison was made was no more than 909 units. So we are comparing a department with 1,610 units and 29½ staff with departments on the mainland of which at the relevant time the largest had 909 units and only 15½ staff.
  Clearly, the general concession of a discretion on the part of education authorities—in this case the Minister's department — to make a special scale for special circumstances was amply fulfilled in the circumstances of Stranmillis.
  Let me, to avoid any misunderstanding, assure the Minister that I am in no way basing my argument upon the particular qualities or attainments of the individual who, at the time concerned, was the head of the department. Those, by general consent, were outstanding. Nevertheless, it is not upon that basis that the argument that I am advancing is founded. It is founded upon the
  210
  sheer unreasonableness, given a system in which departments are graded for purposes of salary at successive minimum and maximum sizes, of treating a department of 1,610 units on the same basis as departments of little more than 900 units, which are the norm in Great Britain with which the comparison is to be made.
  My request to the Minister is that he should seriously address himself to a specific point. He should ascertain — I cannot believe that it is impossible to do so—the corresponding conditions obtaining on the mainland in the relevant years in departments of education graded in grade VI. If it turns out, as I believe it will, that the disparity between Stranmillis and either the norm or the maximum on the mainland was as gross and striking as I have suggested, then he must admit that an adjustment should have been made to the scale in the case of Stranmillis to take account of it.
  I readily accept that in the other grades mere size of department was not regarded as adequate basis for exceptional treatment. That was only logical, however, since exceptional size was going to be dealt with anyhow by promotion into the next higher grade. It stands to reason that one could not create a top grade with a minimum and not a maximum size without taking into account major discrepancies of size in fixing the scale to be applied.
  In readdressing his mind to that question and in looking specifically at the comparison on which I rest my argument — on which we in Northern Ireland are generally content to rest our case — with Great Britain at the relevant time, the Minister will not incur any risk of creating damaging and dangerous precedents. I know how precedent-ridden are advisers when a Minister faces an administrative decision of this kind. In this instance the pieces on the board have moved in an unrecognisable fashion since the relevant years and the only benefit would accrue to an individual in retirement who I believe, having addressed my mind to the matter and having sought the best advice available, has a justifiable sense that an administrative decision was taken to his disadvantage.
  No precedent will be created, no repercussions will accrue in any other direction. I think I know the Minister well enough to believe that he will not be able to resist my request that specifically in the terms that I have put to him he should, even a third time, look again at this individual, difficult but, in its context, important case.
  10.14 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) for having raised this issue on the Floor of the House and for the way in which he has conducted correspondence and pursued these arguments in the immediate past. I think that we are agreed on most of the background facts, although I should like to put some of them on the record. We know that the debate concerns the grading in respect of a former head of department at Stranmillis college, a college of education for the training of teachers in Belfast. Indeed, it might be appropriate for me to pay tribute to that college and to its role in teacher training, particularly during recent very difficult years in Belfast.
  However, at issue tonight is the level of salary that was paid to the right hon. Gentleman's constituent for the period from 1 April 1975 until his retirement on 31 August 1976, upon which his retirement pension was subsequently based. I should like to reiterate a point that I have made

  211
  to the right hon. Gentleman in correspondence. The merits of this case have nothing whatever to do with the personal or professional qualities of his constituent, about which there has never been the slightest question.
  The matter has been raised with my Department by the right hon. Gentleman's constituent and, as has been made clear, there has been correspondence between us. I am perfectly satisfied that the investigations that have over the years been conducted within the Department of Education in Northern Ireland have been thorough and that the conclusions reached have been supported by the terms of the so-called Burnham document and by the Northern Ireland salary regulations which apply in such circumstances.
  My officials took great care to ensure that the treatment of the right hon. Gentleman's constituent was not prejudiced by the fact that Stranmillis was by far and away the largest of the three colleges of education in Northern Ireland and that there was, therefore, no means of making direct comparisons with other heads of departments of a comparable size within the Province. In a moment I shall outline the steps that were taken within the Department in that respect.
  For the benefit of those hon. Members who do not represent Northern Ireland constituencies, I should make it clear that, although the education system in the Province is administered as a separate entity by the Department of Education for Northern Ireland, it has been Government policy, in so far as is possible, to maintain a broad equivalence of provision between the Province and the rest of the United Kingdom. This policy has applied to all phases of education and, for obvious reasons, has been closely observed in the determination of salaries paid to teachers and further education lecturers. Although there have always been separate salary negotiations for Northern Ireland, the outcome has always followed closely, and more often followed precisely, the settlement of salary negotiations in England and Wales.
  For the record, perhaps I should explain that the framework within which salary negotiations take place was laid down by the Pelham committee — which subsequently became known as the Burnham committee — following the 1974 Houghton report, and this has remained substantially unaltered in principle over the past decade. This establishes a comprehensive and definitive method by which the entitlements of, in this instance, a college of education to different grades of staffing are established, including such things as the proportion of senior posts and the emoluments applicable to the post holders. The means of aiming at conclusions on these matters and the factors to be taken into account are clearly identified in the Burnham document. In addition, in Northern Ireland commensurate provision is made in the college of education salaries regulations.
  I shall explain in slightly more detail than the right hon. Gentleman did how the gradings of a college and its academic departments are determined on the basis of point scores. The score is built up from three elements: the numbers of students on courses; the number of hours of work undertaken 'by students in the college in a normal week, and the number of weeks' attendance students are required to fulfil during the academic year. Having agreed the appropriate figures for those components with the local authority or, in the case of Northern Ireland, with the
  212
  Department of Education, the subsequent computation and consequent grading can be determined from the tables set out in the Burnham document. For a head of department, grading is determined by the category within which the points score falls. At the bottom of the scale, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, a grade I head of department will require 76 points, whereas grade VI requires 901 points at the minimum. I emphasise that that is the minimum required for a grade VI appointment.
  The bands approximately double with each step. For example, the difference between grade I and grade II is from 76 to 140 points. The difference between grade V and grade VI is from 601 points to 900 points. If one extrapolates that into the difference between grade VI and a possible grade VII, one would be talking about a dividing line on 1400 or 1500 points. I accept that the Stranmillis point score is in excess of that, although not greatly. In a sense, that is beside the point because there has never been any question of such an extrapolation. In Great Britain, the Department of Education and Science has resolutely declined to accept it.
  The points score at Stranmillis was 1610. Immediately the Department of Education in Northern Ireland recognised that that was significantly in excess of the minimum points necessary to justify a grade VI head of department. The trouble is that there are no means by which to acknowledge that excess of points in a tangible way. That is the root of the difference between the right hon. Member for South Down and the Department.
  I can assure the House that the Department endeavoured at the time to establish any means that might be appropriate to make this possible. Most contingencies are covered in the Burnham document and, in particular, there is a discretionary clause which provides, with the agreement of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, for salary enhancement in special circumstances.
  The college orginally based its claim on that set of circumstances and the large size of the education department at Stranmillis. The Department of Education in Northern Ireland consulted the authoritative sources—the DES and the local authorities conditions of service advisory board, but unfortunately it was only too clear from the advice received that sheer size and volume of work did not constitute special circumstances for such enhancement.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Does any comparable post exist in England and Wales for which so many units are not recognised?
  Mr. Scott: We have been unable to establish that. We are talking about 10 years ago. Many of the comparable institutions involving teacher training and further education that one would have looked to 10 years ago for comparable figures have been merged or reduced in size as a result of the rundown in teacher training. It is not possible to establish from the authorities on this side of the water whether comparable sizes existed here at the time.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Can the Minister let me have a list of the authorities responsible for grade VI departments? I shall willingly correspond with them and ask them to turn up their records for the 1970s, since this is a material point.
  Mr. Scott: That may be so, but the essential point is that, whatever excess there was over the minimum of 901,

  213
  the Department of Education and Science and the Burnham committee have resolutely set their faces against extrapolating the grades a step further—originally to grade VIII as suggested by Stranmillis or even to the grade VII, its fallback position. Sheer size and volume of work do not constitute the circumstances for such enhancement. It was understood that there were instances in comparable institutions in England and Wales where heads of large departments had point scores considerably in excess of 901. However, there had been no agreement to extend the Burnham gradings and the Burnham committee resolutely set its face against any such movement. In those circumstances it would not have been right for my Department to make a special exception in this case.
  At a later stage in the protracted negotiations the college submitted a case for special circumstances apart from size, but the professional advice received by my Department was that the duties listed did not constitute anything out of the ordinary for a large education department. I take the point about drawing comparisons with institutions in Great Britain where there are point scores ranging above 901, but over and above the difficulty which I have mentioned of trying to identify precise analogues my Department considered that the overriding determinant was the interpretation by the Department of Education and Science of the Burnham provisions. The advice was that no matter how high the point score, size alone did not constitute special circumstances.
  The only other possibility within the Burnham rules would have been to restructure the college with the education department established as a faculty, having itself a number of constituent departments, with the head of the department becoming, as it were, a dean of the faculty with an appropriate allowance. This possibility was examined in great depth and was regarded as neither practical nor desirable within the college's existing academic structures for the education department.
  It is some while since my Department was so involved in the protracted negotiations in this case, which ran from
  214
  1976 to 1981. It is always difficult to appreciate a situation as it obtained some years past. However, from the more recent examination which I have conducted as a result of correspondence initiated by the right hon. Member for South Down, I am satisfied that my Department pursued every avenue possible and reached its conclusions rightly in the light of national interpretation of policy at the time.
  I can well understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituent. I can assure him that if there had been any acceptable and valid way of facilitating his constituent my Department would have wished to adopt it. Alas, it was not possible to do that, and as we conducted our negotiations and discussions between the Department of Education and the Department of Education and Science we asked for their advice and asked them to seek the Burnham committee's guidance on what should be done. On each occasion the answer came back that there was no question of extending upwards. Indeed, the committee made it clear that it should not even be asked to offer an opinion on individual cases of this sort because grade VI was the top and only if, for example, a head of a department with an excessive point score was involved in some form of research elsewhere in the institution, or had taken on other responsibilities within the institution, would discretionary payment be considered.
  I believe that the Department has done its best to try to find a way to provide the extra payments for the right hon. Gentleman's constituent. In seeking to remain on a par with the practice on this side of the water, it found that it could not in equity provide the extra payments.
  I am sorry to have to give the right hon. Gentleman a disappointing reply. I have considered the matter with great care. I did so when he first wrote to me and I have done so following subsequent correspondence and in preparation for the debate. I am convinced that the Department behaved properly in coming to the conclusion that it did.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

TRANSPORT
  Severn Crossing
  Severn Crossing
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Bus Lanes
  Bus Lanes
ENVIRONMENT
  Green Belt
  Green Belt
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Outgoers' Scheme
  Outgoers' Scheme
EMPLOYMENT
  Information Technology Centres
  Information Technology Centres
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  El Salvador
  El Salvador

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.

HMS "Conqueror": Log
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer being given in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence to a Private Notice Question about the log of HMS "Conqueror". The Answer is as follows:
"During the Falklands campaign, HMS "Conqueror" kept an account containing detailed operational information which was used to compile the submarine's formal report of proceedings. This is a classified document and is in the possession of the Ministry of Defence.
"The submarine's navigating officer also kept a 'control room log', which records the latitude and longitude, distance run, course, speed and depth of the submarine at hourly intervals, together with other routine readings. This document contains no tactical information. It has been mislaid and, as it, too, is classified, a board of inquiry is being held".
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Answer as his Statement. Is this not a most bizarre turn of events?—I was almost tempted to say "change of course" in this saga, but it is a little too serious for that, I think.
I appreciate that the Minister must not prejudge the outcome of the board of inquiry being held, but certain questions do nonetheless arise now. Is it not the case that repeated calls have been made for the publication of these logs, and in view of that, even if there was no intention of publishing this one for what might be understandable security reasons, is it not extraordinary that the greatest possible care was not taken to keep it safe?
Can the Minister say whether this log contained anything after the "Conqueror's" Falklands duties, ' and, if so, up to what period? He has already explained about the two logs. I should also like to ask him whether the missing one covered any vital and significant matters, bearing in mind the interest in the entire "Belgrano" saga, which is not covered by the log which is still in the possession of Her Majesty's Government or the Royal Navy. If the Minister can answer that categorically I think it would certainly help somewhat.
Can the noble Lord say anything further about the circumstances of the disappearance of the log and when it was last seen? Also can he say how long the board of inquiry is likely to take and whether he will be making a further Statement when the outcome is known? Would he not agree that it is clearly very
22
regrettable that this document is missing, because its contents could confirm or refute some of the claims which have been made about this whole matter? Does it not underline once again, as the Prime Minister herself has been good enough to state, that the Government should have been much more forthcoming than they have, much earlier on? Indeed, if they had been, this particular loss might have been far less worrying and of less significance than it now is.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I also must thank the Government for repeating in this House in the form of a Statement the Answer to the PNQ asked in the House of Commons. Most of us on these Benches are not among those who believe that it is wrong to sink enemy warships in the course of a war, wherever they may be, so long as they are in the general zone of the war itself. On the other hand, it is the case—is it not?—that though the war went very well in most respects, everything has been going wrong in the "General Belgrano" matter since, and the loss of the navigator's log of the "Conqueror" at this point seems almost like a sick joke in what it tells us about the Government's precautions for preserving important documents.
Can the Minister tell us whether there are other records of the "Conqueror's" position from hour to hour and minute to minute during those days other than the navigator's log, and, if so, what they are?—because if there were no record for posterity at all it would be a grave matter.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Boston, that, so far as I can ascertain, the document contains no information that would be of the slightest interest to the noble Lord or, indeed, to any other politicians. It was purely technical information, including the matters which I recited during the Answer—the latitude, the longitude, the distance, the course, the speed and so on—and I do not think the information that it contains would be of any value in the discussions that have been proceeding since the incident took place.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, there is, of course, a narrative account of the submarine's activities, which is the document to which I also referred in the first part of theAnswer. That document, I am certain, gives all the information that is required, and it is, of course, in the possession of the Ministry of Defence. As for the board of inquiry, as I said that board is now sitting. It is expected to report within the next week or so, but, as is normal in these circumstances, it is not intended to publish its report.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether the missing log contained the information which has caused the Government to change their statement that the "Belgrano" was sighted by the "Conqueror" on 2nd May to, now, 1st May, with some suspicion of 30th April? If not, are there any other records from the "Conqueror" which substantiate this change in the information given by the Government? Secondly, does the missing log contain any information concerning the orders and the course taken by the "Conqueror" on the day after the sinking

23
of the "Belgrano", on 3rd May, when it is reported it was ordered to return to the scene of the sinking?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can confirm to the noble Lord that nothing in this document or in any other would cause the Government to change any of the answers that we have previously given.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether any of the items of a technical nature, which he has just told the House were in that log, were listed as either secret or top secret, and could they be of value to some other force? Can he also say whether, if by peradventure the log which is now mislaid were to be found, there will be a further Statement made in this House?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the document is a classified one; that is to say, it does indeed contain information of a secret or otherwise classified nature. As for whether or not an announcement will be made if the document is found, I am certain that the information will be weaseled out of us in one way or another.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, would it be correct to assume that a log of this nature is normally kept permanently on the vessel until it is decommissioned, and would a record have been kept of any orders given to the captain of the vessel for that log to be taken away from it? Will the noble Lord say whether the records of the Ministry of Defence have been searched to see whether any such order was given?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the document is, I understand, kept as a pro forma with spaces on it which are filled in at hourly intervals, as I said during the original Answer. HMS "Conqueror" is now undergoing a refit, and, of course, all documents are removed from it at that time.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, while the sinking of the "Belgrano", or indeed of any other enemy ship which comes within the range of the Royal Navy, has my entire approval, I am nonetheless astonished at learning that a ship of the Royal Navy just loses its log. It is an astonishing statement. Has any Royal Navy ship ever before lost its log? The logs of all those that served at Trafalgar are available to be seen at the Admiralty, and now the "Conqueror" just loses its log. Surely we need a little more than that.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can only say that the noble Lord's astonishment is shared by myself.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, what is the period covered by the log which has gone astray?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand from April to September 1982.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will the Government consider whether they should follow the advice of the official Opposition and publish any of those secret records? Surely it is most unwise to consider publication. This should be utterly rejected. We should only
24
be giving comfort and information of possible value to our potential enemies. Does it really rebound to the credit of both parties, and particularly perhaps to Her Majesty's official Opposition, that they should back every strike, every pay claim and every trivial incident, however dead it is?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can confirm that we do not propose to publish this document.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the noble Lord very kindly give a "Yes" or "No" to the question: Are other contemporary records extant of the position and speed of HMS "Conqueror" while she was tailing the "General Belgrano" and sinking her?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said in answer to the noble Lord a moment or two ago, all the information we require is available from the narrative log, to which I also referred.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister sure that he was the right person to take this Question? Perhaps it should have been taken by the Ministry of ag. and fish.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, can the Minister answer the questions which I put to him previously? Does this log contain any information concerning what has been a contrary assertion by the Government as to the original sighting of the "Belgrano" by the "Conqueror"? If not, are there other documents available which now pinpoint what the Government have been so ambiguous about?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the questions which the noble Lord put to me about the sightings of the "Belgrano" by the submarine have been answered on numerous occasions both in your Lordships' House and in another place. I have nothing to add to what was said on those occasions.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether or not it is true that the implication of some of these questions—whether or not they are directed to the loss of this log—is that there was something wrong or doubtful about the sinking of the "General Belgrano"? Is it not true, as the noble Lords, Lord Kennet and Lord Paget of Northampton, have said, that this ship, whatever its course, speed and destination, presented a potential threat to the safety of Her Majesty's ships? Was it not right therefore that the "General Belgrano" should have been sunk, as it was sunk?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for underlining the Answer which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, on 16th October.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the line between a legitimate action of war and a war crime is narrow and that, on the definition of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, any shooting at all becomes legitimate? But that is not the case beyond a certain level when an action becomes a

25
war crime. The question to be established here is whether or not this action was legitimate.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if the noble Lord is suggesting that in some way we are involved here with a war crime it is a disgraceful suggestion to make.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, my concern relates to security: that there may be some information in the log which would be useful to a foreign power. Despite what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, and others, if that information is in the hands of those who are hostile to the Royal Navy it might place similar submarines of a similar status in some degree of danger.
Lord Trefgarne: Indeed, my Lords. Nowadays I am beginning to define those who are enemies of the Royal Navy in a rather wider way.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this is not the first time that such a loss has occurred? Is he aware that round about 22nd May 1797 several pages were torn out of the log of HMS "Vanguard" shortly before the battle of Aboukir Bay, possibly by Nelson himself?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sorry to hear my noble friend's question. I shall consider whether I need to make a further statement.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, I understood the noble Lord to say that the log book, along with other documents, is normally removed from a vessel during a refit. Can he say whether or not the log book in question disappeared before or during the refit?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is a matter which the board of inquiry will have to determine.

Food and Environment Protection Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to authorise the making in an emergency of orders specifying activities which are to be prohibited as a precaution against the consumption of food rendered unsuitable for human consumption in consequence of a release of substances; to replace the Dumping at Sea Act 1974 with fresh provision for controlling the deposit of substances and articles in the sea; to regulate the importation, sale, supply and use of pesticides and of substances and preparations prepared or used for the control of pests or for protection against pests; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Brunei and Maldives Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision in connection with the admission of Brunei and Maldives to membership of
26
the Commonwealth. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Charities Bill [H.L.]
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make further provision with respect to charities in England and Wales. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Committee of Selection
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, before I move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I say a brief word of thanks to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for the very kind words he spoke yesterday not only about me personally but in particular about my colleagues who act as Deputy Speakers and Deputy Chairmen. We very much appreciated what the noble Viscount said. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in accordance with Standing Order 61 a Committee of Selection be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the Lords to form each Select Committee of the House (except the Committee of Selection itself and any committee otherwise provided for by statute or by order of the House) and the panel of Deputy Chairmen of Committees and that the Lords following together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:—

Ampthill, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Denham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Jacques, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Seear, B.

Tordoff, L.

Whitelaw, V. (L. President)—(Lord Aberdare.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Statutory Instruments: Joint Committee
Lord Denham: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to scrutinise delegated legislation.—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to desire their agreement.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
Debate resumed on the Motion moved yesterday by the Earl Cathcart—namely, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".
2.55 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, our debate today is about foreign affairs and defence, but before turning to those two matters I should like to wish both maiden speakers well—first, my noble friend Lord Eden of Winton, and secondly the noble Lord, Lord Moran. We shall look forward to hearing what they have to say.
In both foreign affairs and defence there is a need for two qualities: determination to pursue our objectives and the capacity to react to changing circumstances. The Government's record over the past 18 months shows both these qualities. I shall concentrate on my own sphere of responsibility. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne will wind up the debate.
I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in the strongest possible condemnation of the brutal assassination of Mrs. Gandhi last week. We were all deeply shocked and saddened. India has lost a leader of the highest quality; Britain has lost a trusted friend. I know that there has been a great deal of indignation and distress—rightly, in my view—about the outrageous reaction of a tiny minority of irresponsible people in this country who have gloated over Mrs. Gandhi's murder. I know that I speak for all of us in this House in condemning such despicable behaviour. At the same time we wish Mr. Rajiv Gandhi well as he takes over in difficult circumstances. Mrs. Gandhi's death is also a blow to the Commonwealth; her wise and constructive contribution will be much missed when Commonwealth Heads of Government meet next autumn in the Bahamas. Mrs. Gandhi would have wished that meeting to be a success. This Government's firm commitment to the Commonwealth will help to ensure that it is.
Some of your Lordships may have spent part of last night or this morning watching the American election results. President Reagan has been re-elected by an overwhelming majority. I warmly congratulate him and Vice-President Bush. We now look forward to working with President Reagan's second administration in the same constructive way as we worked with his first. There will of course be differences, sometimes sharp differences, between us. But these will be discussed in the frank manner that characterises our relationship. We shall continue to make plain our view about the urgent need for a reduction in the size of the United States budget deficit, about high United States interest rates, about the need to contain protectionist pressures and about the extra-territorial outreach of United States jurisdiction which leads to serious conflicts of interest between us, particularly at
28
present over civil aviation matters. All these issues are manageable but they need serious attention. It is an old joke that we are two nations divided by a common language. The truth is that we are two nations united by common aims and values. We can for example agree about the importance of strengthening the common defence, even if not about how to spell it.
With the American elections now behind us, I wish to look at two areas in particular in which the United States role is vital. The first is arms control, which must be seen against the backcloth of East-West relations. The West must continue its efforts to achieve peace and security at the lowest possible level of armaments. The United States have already given a lead on this. President Reagan's speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September could not have been clearer: speaking about the proposed arms control talks in Vienna, after the Russians had backtracked from their own proposal, he said:
"I hope we can begin these talks by the end of the year or shortly thereafter".
He also spoke personally to Mr. Gromyko in September about his sincere wish to make progress. So there can be no doubt where responsibility for the present stalemate rests. In all the various arms control fora—the Conference on Disarmament, MBFR, CDE—the story is the same: constructive Western proposals, with their emphasis on balance and verifiability, are met by Soviet intransigence. It is the same obstinacy which keeps their troops in Afghanistan five years after the invasion. We know that progress over arms control will be slow and difficult. But we shall persevere, and we look forward to working with the new United States administration on arms control issues.
Arms control depends on a sustained political dialogue between East and West. Only this dialogue can create the necessary mutual understanding and confidence. This will inevitably be a long haul, and the US role will be vital. We welcome their recent proposals for regular consultations with the Soviet Union. But Europe too has a distinct contribution to make and enjoys certain advantages, not least of geography. In the past year we have exchanged views with Ministers from most Eastern bloc countries—including Mr. Gromyko, who will visit Britain in 1985. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, Mr. Gorbachev will visit London next month, when he heads the Soviet parliamentary delegation. He will be the most senior Soviet Politburo member to come here for many years. Some of our European partners are also active in promoting contacts and dialogue. Even where the Soviet response is disappointing we must keep trying to break down the barriers.
A second area where the outcome of the US elections must have been eagerly awaited is the Middle East. Two years into his first administration, President Reagan made an important statement on the Arab-Israel dispute. We hope that the region will be high on the agenda for his new administration. There is never an ideal time to tackle the basic problems of the Middle East. But progress is urgently needed over Lebanon and over the West Bank and Gaza. In Lebanon, it is essential that Israel should act on its declared intention of withdrawing, provided that

29
satisfactory security arrangements can be made for Israel's northern border.
As for the Arab-Israel dispute, the two fundamental principles of a settlement must be Israel's right to security and the Palestinians' right to self-determination. The parties themselves must reach agreement. It is neither possible nor right for any outsider to seek to impose a solution. But the West as a whole can urge moderation on both sides, and the United States have great influence to bring to bear in favour of a just and lasting settlement. We shall continue to play our part, as is shown by the visit which my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary paid to Lebanon and Israel 10 days ago.
I now turn to Central America, and in particular to the efforts which the European Community has made in this area. The Contadora process has been beneficial. We hope that final agreement can be reached. The San José meeting in September, attended by the Foreign Ministers of the Ten, showed practical European support for a peaceful settlement in that region. We have underlined the importance of promoting democracy and human rights. Community aid will be increased. Regional projects are planned. Britain is also active in this part of the world on her own account. We have the Belize garrison. We have re-opened resident missions in Managua and San Salvador. I have visited Mexico, Belize, Panama and Costa Rica—and President Monge and President Duarte have visited Britain. We hope to increase our bilateral aid to the region. This is in addition to our existing commitments in the Caribbean, where we are actively supporting regional co-operation and maintain bilateral assistance worth between £25 million and £30 million per year: I have first-hand experience of the Caribbean after two visits since taking office, and I shall be in Trinidad and Barbados next week.
I turn now to the political aspects of defence. It cannot be said too often that NATO is the foundation of our security. The Alliance is as solid today as at any time in its 35 years of history. Its cohesion was again demonstrated by the successful initial deployments of Pershing II and cruise missiles. Here was proof of that determination which I stressed at the beginning of my speech. But my other maxim applies equally to defence: we must be flexible enough to adapt to new circumstances. The threat is changing, partly because of new technological developments. Both pillars of the Alliance—Europe and America—must be strong.
The European contribution is already substantial, and we in Britain have given a lead so far as defence expenditure is concerned; our total contribution is second only to that of the United States itself. American critics of European performance should remember that of the available forces, Europe provides 80 per cent. of the combat aircraft, 85 per cent. of the tanks and 90 per cent. of the manpower—3 million men. So the burden is shared. This is no cause for complacency; there is more to be done by all members of the Alliance. But equally, it is no cause for transatlantic recriminations—expecially in the form of Congressional amendments. Our aim must always be to make our deterrence credible, and that requires us to work together.
30
At their recent meeting in Rome, the Foreign and Defence Ministers of the Western European Union took an important step towards assuring an improved and more cohesive European contribution to the common defence in the Atlantic Alliance. If I say little about this now, it is only because we had a full debate on the subject last week, immediately after that meeting. The Government welcome the declaration that was made in Rome. We have no doubt that WEU has an important role in European defence. It will help strengthen the alliance, which remains and must remain the forum in which decisions affecting the security of all the allies are taken.
Threats to peace and to our interests do not occur only in Europe. Britain has particular defence responsibilities outside the NATO area. Apart from the Falklands, to which I shall return later, we have made contributions to peace-keeping forces in Lebanon and Cyprus, to naval deployments and to minehunting operations in the Red Sea. We also provide military assistance and training to over 70 countries outside NATO. All this reflects Britain's widespread commitments and responsibilities. But these efforts are also an important contribution to the protection and promotion of general Western interests throughout the world.
Membership of the European Community is central to our foreign policy. The Fontainebleau summit was a great step forward—not only because of the lasting correction to our budgetary contribution but because the CAP will no longer swallow an ever-increasing proportion of the Community budget. This will mean that there is more scope for the development of the new non-agricultural policies which Europe needs.
Considerable progress has been made in the enlargement negotiations. Success here is essential; it is not just for the sake of the economic prosperity and democratic commitment of Spain and Portugal. Accession by Spain and Portugal will create new opportunities for existing members. It will also cement the democratic foundation of Western Europe, which is the bedrock on which all other achievements are built. That is why Britain will make every effort to help overcome the difficulties which remain, so that Spain and Portugal may join the Community on 1st January 1986.
Now the time has come to look at the future development of the Community. The first priority must be to fit the Community to meet the challenge of the future. The completion of the internal market as envisaged in the Treaty of Rome is essential to enable our industry and our people to benefit from the dynamic effects of a single market. The impact in terms of more investment, more jobs and greater prosperity would be very great. We shall continue therefore to make proposals to do away with the barriers that exist.
There is so much the Europeans can do together; and in the process we shall grow together. We can co-operate more over research and industrial development: Airbus, ESPRIT and JET are examples of what can be achieved. We can collaborate over the new technologies which will change the lives of all Europe's inhabitants. We can have more cultural interchange. All these co-operative efforts, and the

31
habit of European thinking which they engender in each member state, are some of the many ways to progress towards the ever-closer union which we want. Throughout the process our commitment to Europe will never be in doubt.
Our bilateral contacts with West European partners are excellent. Already this autumn we have had a state visit by President Mitterrand, and a summit meeting with Italy. A meeting between the Prime Minister and Chancellor Kohl had to be postponed because of the arrangements for the funeral of the Indian Prime Minister. A further meeting between the Prime Minister and President Mitterrand is due to take place at the end of this month. Such meetings are valuable, not just for the possibilities they offer for increased understanding and for bringing views on important issues closer together, but also because of the commercial and industrial possibilities which are often identified in the course of them. We believe that industrial collaboration in the civilian and military fields could be developed more between partners in the Community. Some progress has been made along these lines in the recent meetings. I have already given some examples of joint civil projects. In the military field our collaboration with Germany and Italy over Tornado is the biggest existing project; for the future, we and four other European governments are looking in detail at the possibilities of constructing together a next generation of European fighter aircraft.
The gracious Speech mentioned the Falkland Islands. We have two policy aims, different but compatible. The first is to retain steadfast in our resolve to fulfil all our commitments to the islanders. The second, no less important, is to seek more normal bilateral relations with Argentina. Our first aim requires us to maintain a military presence which is sufficient to defend the islands against any further act of aggression by Argentina. The garrison is of the minimum size necessary for this purpose. The first runway at Mount Pleasant airfield should become operational by the spring of 1985, the completion of both runways should be by the spring of 1986. That will permit a rapid reinforcement. It should enable us to reduce the forces permanently stationed on the islands. But—and this is perhaps more important in the longer term—the airfield will also contribute significantly to the future economic development of the Falklands. This is in line with the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. We hope that the predominance of its military role will be only temporary and that in time its function will be primarily civil; and already there are some small but encouraging signs that the islands' economy is beginning to recover from the effects of the invasion.
In pursuit of our second aim we have worked hard to improve our bilateral relations with Argentina, on the understanding that the question of sovereignty was excluded. The Argentine Government's attitude at the Berne talks in July was intransigent, and President Alfonsin's subsequent remarks have not helped. But we still wish to make progress towards the restoration of more normal relations.
At the United Nations General Assembly last week we reaffirmed our two aims. We voted against the Argentine resolution, which yet again failed to take
32
any account of the right of the islanders to live under a government of their own choosing. The result was good. Sixty-three countries, including two-thirds of the members of the Commonwealth and all our Community partners, declined to vote with Argentina for this resolution. The resolution was passed, but it is, of course, not binding on member states. Nor will it in any way affect our determination to stand by our commitments to the islanders.
The gracious Speech mentioned two other dependent territories for which we have direct responsibility. Over Hong Kong there has been great progress. The draft agreement initialled in Peking on 26th September is a credit to my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and reflects the hard work of the British and Chinese negotiating teams. After two years of arduous negotiations we have succeeded in reaching agreement on a detailed package which should provide the basis for renewed confidence about the future of Hong Kong. That confidence should in turn continue to underpin the prosperity of the territory. Your Lordships will have an early opportunity to debate this issue in full when the people of Hong Kong have had an opportunity to express their views on the draft agreement.
As for Gibraltar, we shall continue to work for early implementation of the Lisbon statement. My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has had a series of meetings with the Spanish Foreign Minister, and will see him again soon. The Lisbon process remains the best way of managing all our differences with Spain over Gibraltar. It will mean, among other things, the restoration of direct communications in the region, and it explicitly confirms Britain's commitment to the people of Gibraltar.
A foreign affairs speech which touches every possible topic is like a guided tour on which the bus stops too often. In either case the impression left is blurred. Before concluding, therefore, I shall mention only two other subjects. The first is Cyprus. I visited the island in October 1983 and made clear to Mr. Denktash that we should take a very serious view of any so-called declaration of independence. I said that such a move would make a solution to the Cyprus dispute much harder and would naturally be condemned. Events have proved me right. But the United Nations Secretary-General is making untiring efforts to bring about a resumption of intercommunal talks. He has our active support and we have urged both sides to show flexibility. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister had discussions with President Kyprianou on 24th September and my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary met the Turkish Foreign Minister on 27th September. We shall continue to support the United Nations Secretary-General's initiative, which we see as the best way forward.
The second subject is Ethiopia. We have all been horrified by the pictures on our TV screens and by the news of the terrible sufferings of the people of Ethiopia. The appalling drought has led Britain and the European Community to respond quickly to this pressing need. I am proud to remind the House that RAF aircraft were the first to be flying supplies into the

33
drought-affected areas. Bilaterally we had already allocated this year a total of £36 million of aid for drought relief in Africa. In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs recently announced over 6,000 tonnes of British bilateral food aid for Ethiopia and a further £5 million for Ethiopia and other African countries. As for the European Community, after a British initiative the Development Council met yesterday in Brussels, attended by my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development. It agreed to send £35 million worth of help to Ethiopia and other needy African countries. This includes 200,000 tonnes of cereals.
The Government have set clear objectives in the areas of foreign affairs and defence, and we have worked hard to achieve them. We understand the need for Britain to work with her allies and friends. That is why we base our foreign policy on NATO and the European Community. That is why we attach such importance to the Commonwealth. The Government are proud of their achievements in defence and foreign policy, and will continue to fulfil all their commitments and shoulder their responsibilities.
3.17 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in saying that we on this side are also looking forward to hearing the two maiden speakers today. We are very grateful to the noble Baroness for her wide-ranging speech, which touched upon the main foreign policy issues.
As the noble Baroness indicated, our debate is overshadowed by the tragic death of Mrs. Gandhi and I join with the noble Baroness in condemning the small group in this country who appear to gloat over the event. We welcome people who settle in this country, but when they do come we think they should use our streets to better purpose. The future of India as the world's largest democracy—something of which Mrs. Gandhi was very proud—is of acute concern to us and to the whole world. The House has voiced its sympathy and I will do no more today than express the hope that Mr. Rajiv Gandhi will succeed in the truly enormous task of resolving the complex internal problems of his great country.
I propose first to deal with the four islands which were touched upon by the noble Baroness. Indeed, over the past fortnight some of these matters have been raised in the House both in statements and by way of Questions. Three of the islands are mentioned in the gracious Speech and I do not propose to go into great detail. It would be wrong, however, if I did not follow my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones and congratulate the Foreign Secretary upon the Hong Kong settlement. There were obvious limitations to what could be achieved in practice, and the agreement is probably as good as Britain and Hong Kong can expect to get. As my noble and learned friend said in the House on 25th October:
"At the end of the day . . . much depends on the good faith and honour of the Chinese Government and ourselves, which will be at stake in the coming years".—[Official Report, 25/10/84; col. 298.]
We of course look forward with great interest to hearing the views of the Assessment Officer on the reactions of the people of Hong Kong. His report will,
34
I understand, be published towards the end of this month. As the noble Baroness said, we shall be able to discuss this when the House debates the draft agreement in due course.
Gibraltar has also been referred to several times, and the noble Baroness has mentioned it today. We have discussed it previously in the context of the accession of Spain and Portugal to the Community. The Statement on the Foreign Affairs Council on 24th October said:
"Considerable progress was made in the negotiations on the accession of Spain and Portugal".—[Official Report, 24/10/84; col. 212.]
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, then said that the Government regarded it:
"as inconceivable that the restrictions presently in force, particularly on the land border, can remain in place after Spain joins the Community.—[Official Report, 24/10/84; col. 215.]
I think that we are right in this debate to press the question of Gibraltar a little further, as, if it is not settled, we assume that the Government will not agree to Spain's accession. That could lead to a fresh crisis. We understand that there have been talks with Spain on Gibraltar during most of this year and that the Community is thinking in terms of a seven-year transitional period. We also read in some newspapers that Spain is preparing to implement the 1980 Lisbon Agreement.
On 4th November the Sunday Times said that the United Kingdom had made important concessions in order to achieve agreement. The noble Baroness was very interesting in what she said today, but she gave no indication of these concessions. I think that the House would wish to know precisely what has been offered or conceded in order to facilitate a settlement. That is of considerable importance to us and to the people of Gibraltar.
The third group of islands is, of course, the Falklands. Here the efforts to achieve constructive negotiations, as the noble Baroness said, have come to a dead end. It is very much in the interests of the Argentine and ourselves to find an amicable solution. It is regrettable that the July talks between the two countries collapsed. They collapsed, as the noble Baroness said, on the issue of sovereignty. But it is wrong, and it is foolish, that more than two years after the conflict, the exclusion zone is still in being and on the Argentine side a state of hostilities still exists.
President Alfonsin has launched his diplomatic initiative in the United Nations, and received a good deal of support from quarters which are not unfriendly to this country. But he has also said that the Argentine would use "only peaceful means" in the mission to recover the islands. There must, of course, be a recognition on both sides that some compromise at some stage is essential. President Alfonsin must not forget that the conflict was started by a cruel and stupid military junta but that it was also the Government of the Argentine at the time; and our Government must understand, notwithstanding what the noble Baroness has just said, that they can now deal with a reasonable and benign democratic leader. The success of the new Government is important both to South America and to ourselves, and the way that President Alfonsin deals with the Falklands problem is a crucial factor in that success.

35
It should in one sense be much easier to reach a satisfactory settlement here and on Gibraltar than in the case of Hong Kong. I know that there are deep feelings, but there are also long-term financial, defence and foreign policy implications, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary will apply his mind and his energies to seeking a solution to this problem with the same determination and resilience with which he approached the question of Hong Kong.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, am I to understand that the noble Lord is saying officially from the Front Bench opposite that he is prepared to consider compromise on the question of sovereignty because the same thing also applies to Gibraltar? Are we to understand that the Labour Party is prepared to think in terms of compromising sovereignty in the Falklands and in Gibraltar?
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I would remind the noble Lord that Governments which he supported and of which he was a member at one stage, and previous Labour Governments as well, were prepared to talk in reasonable terms with the Argentine over a period of 25 or more years with compromise in mind. If a settlement is to be achieved in future, both sides must be prepared to make some compromise. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that as inevitable sooner or later.
As I said, we have a considerable interest in achieving a settlement. If I may say so in further answer to the noble Lord, I think we should have a full debate on the question of the Falklands and the Argentine as soon as we can. There are so many nuances to this problem and so many details to be examined, including the matters raised by the noble Baroness on expenditures in the Falklands, that this can be done full justice to only in a full debate.
The noble Baroness referred to Cyprus. I am glad that she did so because it is, strangely, not mentioned in the gracious Speech. We do not have the same direct responsibility there as we have in respect of the other three islands, but we do have a considerable interest. One newspaper described Cyprus in a headline last month as:
"An isle in distress and no saviour in sight".
Mr. Perez de Cuellar has taken an initiative here, and I should like to pay the warmest possible tribute to him as a most constructive and hardworking Secretary-General of the United Nations. I think that he is a man who deserves the highest praise. But Mr. Denktash is not an easy man to move, and he is buttressed by another military government in Turkey.
The United States appears to be ambivalent about Turkey, and I shall be glad if the Minister when he winds up will comment on its reported compromise formula. This, I understand, proposes that the President of Cyprus should be a Greek Cypriot but that all executive power should be vested in a prime minister and a deputy prime minister; that each of these two should have a right of veto; and that the two posts should alternate between the two communities. It goes on to propose that the 38 per cent. of the island now held by the Turks should be reduced to 30 per
36
cent. That does not seem to us to be very satisfactory, and I shall be glad to have the Government's reaction and some indication of the way that they see things developing on the Cyprus front.
I shall now turn as briefly as I can to the other main issues. As the noble Baroness said, one of the problems of these debates is that their scope is so wide that it becomes quite impossible to deal with everything. As she said, the Foreign Secretary has recently returned from a visit to the Middle East. We have noted that he restated in Saudi Arabia the substance of Security Council Resolution 242, as did the noble Baroness today. Chancellor Kohl in Israel and President Mitterrand in Jordan have said the same thing. The Foreign Secretary appears to have had encouraging talks with Mr. Peres and Mr. Shamir, and we hope that this visit, with the others, will lead to a relaxing of tension.
The withdrawal of foreign troops from the Lebanon remains a central obstacle, although the negotiations are continuing. President Mubarak of Egypt is reported as saying that new peace initiatives in the Middle East are probable after the American presidental election. I would, however, repeat what I and others on both sides in these debates have said; namely, that no permanent solution in the Middle East can be expected without the participation of the Soviet Union as well as the United States. May I assume that that is accepted by the Government? The "back-yard factor" is as relevant here as elsewhere. The Soviet Union has in fact suggested the reconvening of the Geneva Conference. I hope that that is something that Her Majesty's Government and the new Government of the United States will also consider.
The impression that one gets is of considerable movement and activity in the Middle East generally at the present time. Jordan's new parliament has met; Egypt has rejoined the Islamic Conference Organisation; and Syria appears to be tending towards a more co-operative stance, although its direction is unclear. In addition to that, the Israeli cabinet is, I believe, debating the details of possible withdrawal. Over and above all this, however, the gnawing concern of Arab countries is the continuing Gulf war, where losses have now reached the terrible total of about half a million men.
Perhaps the noble Lord, when he replies, will give us information about the current safety of British tankers in the Gulf at the present time. His comments on another matter will also be greatly appreciated by us; namely, the complaints which are being made about the supply of arms by this country to Iran. It is said that Britain's role in building up Iran's naval forces has dismayed our allies in the Gulf and elsewhere. A clear statement of what exactly we are doing and why we are supplying arms in the context of a cruel, dangerous and unnecessary war must be made by the Minister at the end of this debate.
We join the noble Baroness in congratulating President Reagan upon his election. We recognise that the policies and attitudes of the new American Administration will again influence events in many parts of the world. These policies are of the first importance to us and to our allies. We reaffirm our friendship with the United States, both within NATO and outside it. We have had our disagreements with

37
them on several issues over the last few years. This has not ruptured the alliance but it nevertheless causes concern. In central America and Southern Africa it has not always been possible to go along with United States policies and attitudes.
The harsh public argument between Washington and Moscow has, thankfully, become more muted over the last few months and there are the beginnings of a possible negotiation, as was shown by President Chernenko's interview in the Washington Post three weeks ago. We hope that President Reagan will follow this up as he settles down to his second term. We also hope that the Government will encourage him in this constructive pursuance of détente. In this context again Mr. Gromyko's visit to this country next year can be very helpful. More immediately, we must welcome Mr. Gorbachev's visit to this country in a few days' time. As the House is aware, he occupies a most important position in the Soviet Government and it will be useful for the Prime Minister and others to have talks with him.
The primary objective is to work for a resumption of the Geneva talks. No one expects either side to make concessions in advance, but both have already made some public proposals. As the noble Baroness has said, President Reagan's speech in the United Nations in September was a constructive start. I agree with what she said about the need to sustain political dialogue. My noble friend Lord Boston will deal at greater length with this matter, and with defence generally, when he winds-up.
But it is a topsy-turvy world and a foolish one in which massive expenditures on arms proceed relentlessly side by side with the starvation of millions of people. The noble Baroness has spoken of the Government's actions in Ethiopia. Of course, we warmly welcome these, as we also admire the marvellous reaction of the British people. The pictures on television and people's reactions to them have spurred Governments in turn to action. However, the warning has been there for a very long time. As my noble friend Lord Oram said last week—and I am sure he will enlarge on the problem when he speaks today—the famine in Ethiopia on 27th April last year was discussed in the debate on the second Brandt Report. But I am bound to say, and anyone who reads the debate must agree with me, that there was little appreciation of the problem then and an inadequate reaction by the Government to that problem.
We have in this House discussed the role of the IMF and the World Bank on several occasions. The House will recall that the second Brandt Report called for an enlargement of the role of the IMF and of its resources in an effort to resolve the current balance-of-payments debt and banking crisis. The availability of money at low rates through the IDA—that is the lending agency of the World Bank—is only one important factor. I do not like quoting my own words, but as I said in the House then, only 18 months ago:
"Practical assistance is needed to assist the underdeveloped countries not only to develop their own resources but also to process their own resources … massive drainage schemes and major agricultural development suited to soil and climate are probably the most important needs of some of the poorest of all. The experience of Ethiopia in recent months … should have made that plain to the whole world".—(Oficial Report, 27/4/83; col 962.)
38
That was said on 27th April 1983. If East and West gave a tithe of the attention to this problem that they give to piling up armaments, the problem would be resolved in a measurable period. I hope the Minister can tell us that the Government are planning in the long term as well as the short term.
It is good to know that the development Ministers of the Community, and that included Mr. Timothy Raison, met last week to co-ordinate all the countries' contributions. I hope they will take a long-term view of the problem in Africa generally as well as recognise the need to give important short-term assistance. I think the gracious Speech contains the right words but prompt action is needed as well as words.
The gracious Speech also referred to Namibia and says that the Government will work for a settlement there. This is taking a very long time. We note that Dr. Chester Crocker has been talking to Mr. Botha and other South African Ministers over the past few days and that the withdrawal from Namibia of Cuban troops on the one hand and South African troops on the other was on the agenda. If this can be achieved then the road to free elections is clear. I hope that the Minister can give us some information on the prospects following these talks.
Another election has been held in the past few days in addition to the one in the United States. That took place in Nicaragua. All the accounts of what I have read in the press seem to be agreed that the Nicaraguan elections were free and well organised. I wonder whether the Minister agrees with that conclusion from the information that he has received from our mission in Nicaragua. The United States may not have an affection for the elected Government of Nicaragua but I hope that they will not seek to interfere with it, either directly or indirectly. That would be a most serious step to take. It would indeed damage the understanding between the United States and her friends.
This brings me back to the big news of the day; namely, President Reagan's re-election for four years. As I have said, the importance of this event and of his administration's policies cannot be overestimated. In the Middle East, in Southern Africa, in Central America of course, in East-West relations and the hope of disarmament and détente, the attitude of the United States will be crucial. We are America's friend and ally but we are not puppets of America and at the start of the new administration we should make that perfectly plain. We look forward to a period of fruitful co-operation with the United States and to "that greater atmosphere of trust between East and West" mentioned in the gracious Speech. The main task of foreign policy should be to build up this trust. But it will take time and a great deal of quite and sensible diplomacy to achieve it. I urge the Government to use all their energies to that end.
Lord Spens: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question relating to his remarks about Cyprus? Is the noble Lord aware that less than a month ago Mr. Denktash told me that he had accepted in full the proposals made by Mr. Perez de Cuellar in New York and that it was President Kyprianou who was proving intransigent and would

39
not move away from the position that he took up at the beginning of January?
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for the question, but I feel that he and the House would agree that it is not a question for me but is one for the noble Baroness, who met Mr. Denktash, and the noble Lords, who are in possession of all the facts. I am sure that they will take what he says into account.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the parties of the Alliance wish to be fully associated with everything that the Minister of State and the Leader of the Labour Opposition have said about Mrs. Gandhi. We also welcome the two maiden speakers in this debate. I shall speak briefly about Nicaragua, since I returned from Nicaragua this morning. I had not intended to deal with it because I had believed that Lord Chitnis would be devoting his speech in this debate to it. Somehow, however, he does not seem to be here, and I know that he would want me to give a short account of what we saw in that election. There were five Members of both Houses of this Parliament present for the election, of whom three were an all-party group who went on behalf of the Human Rights Committee of both Houses of Parliament. We were guests of the Nicaraguan Government, among some hundreds of invited observers. There were also present, according to the figures that we were given, 1,040 journalists from all over the world.
As to the voting and counting itself, and the mechanics of the election, which we were perfectly free to observe in our hundreds, what we saw was a highly practical, well-prepared and completely serious system of voting and counting. The opinion of all the Members of the British Parliament who were there was that it was, in every respect, as good as our own in this country, and in one or two minor respects, very surprisingly, even a little better. There is no question of any malpractice. What we saw was, in effect, a malpractice-proof system. The Nicaraguan authorities had the help of Sweden in setting up the system, and they had the help of France in the electronic machinery needed for it. I regret very much that our Government did not see fit to agree to my proposal that we should at least send some paper to help them with the election.
There remains the question of the campaign beforehand. Was it, or was it not, conducted under reasonably free conditions? There were disorders. They were disorders of a nature which would attract attention if they were to happen in this country, where they would be regarded as disgraceful, but would not if they were to happen in, shall we say, Italy. They were disorders on a scale which is quite normal in elections in the European Latin countries—no worse than that. Were the opposition parties free to campaign? Six opposition parties took part in the elections. Indeed, on the present state of the count, they obtained 35 per cent. of the votes. The elections were not as free as they would have been in an ideal situation. If you have been a one-party state for four years and suddenly decide to hold free elections—that is exactly what
40
happened—obviously, it will take the opposition parties more than four months to catch up, in public knowledge and support, with the government party. This is how it was. The government party was aware of these difficulties. The Nicaraguan Government gave £25,000 to each of the six opposition parties that were standing, in order to help them to make their views known.
It is a pity, I think, that the British Government did not, in the end, agree to send official observers to the elections along with Holland and Sweden, and as they have done to the Salvadorean elections. If they had, these observers would have seen what hundreds of us saw, and this would have helped the Government help the United States Administration to understand that these elections were not a farce, as it has claimed. I hope that our Government will study the secret paper of the National Security Council in Washington, leaked to the Washington Post and published this morning, which describes the forthcoming campaign of the Administration to persuade us in Europe that these elections were a farce, through the means of their embassies here.
The first section of the Queen's Speech is concerned with national security. I should like not to speak to that under the rubric introduced by Lady Young when she said that we agree with the United States on the need to strengthen our defences, if not on how to do it. Just over a year ago in the debate on the Defence Estimates, I invited the House and the Goverment to consider Star Wars, or, to give it its more correct name, the strategic defence initiative of the United States. The idea was launched by President Reagan in March 1983 in a now world famous speech which he made without consultation with his allies and even without consultation with his own Secretary of Defence, although the latter has loyally defended it since and has even managed to commend its "moral nobility", of all things.
President Reagan, as we know, is a romantic. In his speech, he showed to the full the lineaments of a romantic in a white tower. He proposed that a system of defences against ballistic missiles should be researched and developed, so perfect in its efficacity and in its extent that it would—and the words are his—"make nuclear weapons obsolete". Using every sort of new and foreseen technology, a series of beams and other effects, launched from every thinkable environment, and a series of armed satellites, under the command and control of another series of satellites, provided with sensors and data processors of a fineness as yet only dreamed of, would be devised. It would be capable of destroying Soviet ballistic missiles not only when the re-entry vehicles enter the atmosphere, not only between the time when they leave their delivery "bus" and the time when they reach the atmosphere, it would be capable of destroying not only the "bus" itself in mid-trajectory but even the boosted missile on its upward course.
The amount of information that would have to be handled, and the very small number of minutes or even seconds for handling it, means that this would be an automatic system. There can be no question of human, let alone political, judgment: this could only be automatic war. Since March 1983 many voices in the United States, including some in the Adminis-

41
tration, have outlined some smaller and perhaps more credible plans for ballistic missile defence. To some of these there might be no objection. But—and the House and the Government should note the significance of this—President Reagan has not altered his original idea. He repeated it in its extreme form in one of his two debates with Mr. Mondale during the campaign. It is to be the Great Protective Bubble itself. In this debate he even retreated so far into his ivory tower as to say that he would give the technology to the Russians so that they could erect the same sort of shield against the United States. This is the President of the United States, and the President of the United States makes policy.
We should therefore look at what has been happening in the United States. Research contracts are being let. More than 240 companies tendered for a recent batch of 10 or 12 contracts. But that was not enough for the Strategic Defence Initiative Office. They wanted to get an even wider swathe of industry involved, so they postponed the closing date for tenders. These first contracts together will be worth only about 12 million dollars. The House will remember that the President is asking for a sum of 26,000 million dollars over the next four years. The idea behind this has been expressed by the chief scientist of the Strategic Defence Initiative Organisation, Gerold Yonas, as follows:
"A limited set of options could be counter-measured by the Soviet Union".
That is a limited set of US options. He is therefore apparently seeking a more or less unlimited set of options which could not be counter-measured by the Soviet Union. One of the biggest challenges facing the Strategic Defence Initiative, say its administrators, is to maintain public and congressional support as well as that of the allies. Well, yes!
Now what will the Soviet Union do? They cannot but see all this as an attempt by the United States to use its greater wealth and greater technological base to achieve something going on for a first strike position—the ability to wipe out all Soviet retaliatory capacity in one swoop. God knows, the American military industrial complex often enough fears that the technically inferior Soviet Union is going to reach this position. We do not have to rely on speculation about what the Russians think. Academician Ronald Sagdeyev, who is the director of the Space Research Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences, has said:
"The aim of the US programme aimed at setting up a space-based anti-missile defence system is to create conditions under which the USA could prepare a first strike and avoid retaliation".
Unfortunately, this is not just the usual black propaganda. It is a natural fear.
One's reaction to all this can only be weariness. We have heard it all before. Twenty years ago, the Soviet Union told the United States that ballistic missile defence was very virtuous: who could deny a country the right, indeed the duty, to use all possible means to defend its territory and its population? Prime Minister Kosygin himself used to say this.
The United States at that time painstakingly explained the virtues of mutual assured deterrence and pointed to the fears that would arise in NATO if the Soviet Union developed what would appear to NATO
42
to be part of a first strike posture. Now it is the other way round. The Americans want new and virtuous ballistic missile defences and it is the Russians who fear a first strike. Maybe if the world lasts another 20 years we shall see the boots change feet yet again.
Shooting down a missile in space, sorting out the armed re-entry vehicle from a host of different kinds of decoys, will be difficult and infinitely expensive. There is of course an exception to this—that is, if you are prepared to destroy the missile before it starts. Then it gets, relatively, easy. But this is the pre-emptive first strike, which is a despicable and horrific idea not even discussed as a policy among thoughtful people.
But we might ask ourselves how much difference there is between taking out a missile on the ground and taking it out 1,000 feet from the ground, before you, or rather your equipment, know where it is going. There is a difference, of course; but shooting it down at 1,000 feet cannot be called defence by whoever does it, since at that stage your equipment would not know who it was defending. That action would have the effect of depriving the Soviet Union of retaliatory capacity as surely as a disarming first strike itself; and, of course, vice versa, were the Soviet Union to expand its anti missile capabilities in the same way. Let us note in passing that the system would be under political control only if it were to be used as an adjunct to a first strike. In any other circumstances, it must be designed to launch itself.
The Government—our Government—are at present content to say that all this is only research and that when the research is finished will be the proper time for European governments to make their views known to the United States. This is nonsense, and to say this is to relinquish for ever any possibility of affecting developments. Can anybody seriously think that when the United States military industrial complex has digested a research programme of 28,000 million dollars, and when employment, lucrative consultancies and all the well-heeled, well-blinkered paraphernalia of Pentagon contracts is established in hundreds of congressional districts across the United States, that complex is going to sit back and let its Congressmen and Senators say that it was all a mistake in the first place, has led nowhere, and should now be wound up?
To put it more bluntly: if our Government think all this is a good idea then they are quite right to keep silent about it, because it will happen. If they think it is a bad idea, they must urge—and urge now—that 28 billion dollars should not be spent on finding out how to do something that ought not to be done. Research into the indefensible is itself indefensible. I shall not spend any more time talking about the technical aspects of this; they do not matter very much. What matters are the strategic, political and economic factors.
Strategically it is pointless. Mutual assured deterrence will continue. The most perfect anti-ballistic missile defence in the world will not catch bombers, or long-range cruise missiles, or ballistic missiles lobbed at short range by submarines, let alone mines or suitcases. I have already pointed out that, in so far as it serves any purpose, it will tend to be indistinguishable from a first strike posture.

43
We come now to the political questions. Who is supposed to be covered by the "great bubble"? Obviously the United States. But President Reagan has more than once said that the allies of the United States would also be covered. Canada, my Lords? Yes; we can imagine that. What about Western Europe? Mark first of all the geo-political absurdity that Norway and Denmark are to be protected; Sweden is not. Turkey and Israel are to be protected, but a missile headed towards Syria—and such a thing is not unthinkable in the future—is to be carefully let through; and so on.
Let us think for a moment of the political effects upon Europe of the deployment there of endoatmospheric re-entry vehicle interceptors. We have the word for it of James Dobbins, the American Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, that the United States Government have,
"explained to our allies that our research efforts in SDI are designed to address the threat of shorter range ballistic missiles to their territory, as well as inter-continental ballistic missiles".
That means they would be deployed here to shoot down the SS.20s aimed at us as well as the ICBMs aimed at America.
We are already putting up with the Pershing IIs and the cruise missiles to offset or counterbalance the SS.20s. The Soviet Union has a faint but real possibility of adapting the SAM. 12 so that it can shoot down the Pershing IIs. How long is all this to go on? Are the governments of Europe expected to welcome the political effect it will so obviously have on ordinary people? Would NATO survive it? Indeed, it is already clear that the governments of Europe do not welcome it. Mr. Genscher has said for West Germany that he is not at all in favour of it, and Mr. Fabius has called not for "Star Wars" but for "Star P ce", which is a good enough headline. Public silence from London, or nearly!
The United States has assured us, and we can readily agree, that the present research programme will not breach the ABM Treaty. But deployment of a ballistic missile defence system of this sort would tear it up, and possibly some other treaties too, beginning with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. There is no question of this. And I have to say that in this part of the House we defend treaties, and if our allies look as though they are going to break them we ask them to desist from breaking them. If the Government send no message, let this House send a message, and let that be it.
The disgraceful argument is even beginning to be heard that a deployment of this kind in Western Europe would not infringe the ABM Treaty because—wait for it!—the treaty covers only strategic missiles and the SS.20s are not strategic. I say "disgraceful" because it is a nationalistic argument. It involves the unspoken statement that a nuclear weapon landing on the USA is strategic and one landing somewhere else is not strategic but tactical. Well, all of us here happen to live within range of the SS.20s, and I submit that makes them strategic. Mr. Weinberger not so long ago got the Pentagon to stop calling nuclear weapons which could not hit the US, "theatre weapons". Here is another case for his benign blue pencil.
44
The last, and by no means the least important, clutch of arguments against SDI is the economic one. Seven thousand million dollars a year on research. What will development cost? Five times that? Let us say so. Then what would procurement cost? We can all extrapolate from experience on that one. The Government of Ethiopia tell us that there are 6 million people there in danger of death from starvation; the world financial system is crumbling because we have still not found a viable way to spread self-sufficiency from the rich north to the poor south. The very budget deficit of the United States itself, as Lady Young said (or nearly), is one of the main constraints on the development of rational and morally defensible economic arrangements for the world.
What can be the justification for pouring more and more wealth into the next stage of the arms race? Let us not forget that weapons are the only thing made by man which not only do not produce wealth, which not only consume wealth, but which are held with loving care and paranoid suspicion in case they should ever be needed to destroy wealth. Think of the waste of qualified young people whose minds could have been turned to the good of their fellows.
This thing is arms race for ever more. If it is carried through, there is not the faintest hope of the Soviet Union ever coming back to any disarmament table with the United States. On the contrary, they will, as the United States would, and as we would if we were in the same position, devote all their energies to outflanking the system, to increasing the penetration power of their own strike force, and in the end presumably to building a system of the same sort themselves. President Reagan has already put his foot down on the accelerator of the arms race harder even than President Kennedy did. We have seen the effect of President Kennedy's decisions. They it was that provoked the Russian decisions that provoked the counter-decisions of President Reagan's first term. We have also seen unprovoked Russian decisions—going into ASAT and beam research and dubious radars, for instance, to which all this (that is, the SDI) is, in a sense, a response. But is President Reagan to be remembered as a president who screwed the arms race forward twice, once in each of his two terms?
The project has few friends in this country who are unconnected with the arms industry. Whitehall is against it; the armed forces knew nothing of it in advance and are properly sceptical. They know what their own needs are, and this is not among them. The Prime Minister, true enough, has said a quiet word in the right direction: she has said that she favours negotiation preceded by restraint. That is good as far as it goes, but that was many months ago and this giant wagon of cloistered make-believe and indolent profits is still lumbering forward. Let the Government say now, audibly, to Parliament and people, and to our valued ally the United States, that this is folly and we will have none of it. We do not want arms race for ever more. We want restraint and resumed negotiations; not piecemeal here-and-there adjustments, but real arms reduction negotiations across all types of weapons. We want that and we want it now, and if the Government will not say that, then let public opinion in this country and in other West European countries

45
hear it said from these Benches, if not others, in this House today.
Mr. Reagan has to choose between disarmament and the Strategic Defence Initiative. Although he has embraced both and committed himself to both, he cannot have both. And if he chooses the Strategic Defence Initiative, none of us will have disarmament. The Government must help him understand this. There is perhaps no one in the world better placed than the Prime Minister to do so.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I welcome the references to the European Community which are contained in the gracious Speech and I shall, with your Lordships' indulgence, concentrate on them for a few moments.
The paragraph which refers to the European Community appears in the first part of the gracious Speech more generally devoted to foreign affairs and to defence, but it could as well have appeared in the later section on economic affairs and employment. I believe that there can no longer be doubt about the economic importance of Britain's membership of the Community. More than 43 per cent. of our trade is with Community countries and that is likely to grow when the accession of Spain and Portugal is achieved in 1986. Even so, as my noble friend has made clear, the full benefit in terms of economic growth and the creation of new jobs will not be realised until the Common Market has been fully achieved.
I was encouraged by the remarks of my noble friend in this respect. As she said, action is now required to harmonise standards and to prevent their use as barriers to trade whether within or beyond the Community; to see the early establishment of rapid and co-ordinated customs procedures which are proving to be both so costly and so irksome; and to make progress in liberalising trade in services which has been lamentably slow, to the considerable disadvantage of our banking, insurance and transportation industries.
The Commission's own priorities have been made clear: to achieve progress in the conservation of energy and the security of supply of the essential raw materials; to give special emphasis in research and development to information technology and biotechnology; and to work for more effective environmental protection. However, as your Lordships will not need to be reminded by me, the Community is about more than improving the market opportunities in goods and services: it has political objectives as well and these are acquiring increasing importance.
The problems which beset us in this country also affect others in the Community. The anxieties which we have here are felt also elsewhere in Europe. Recent events have made us all aware of the ever-present menace of the terrorist, of the destructive influence of mass protest and violence on the streets and at our place of work. By the pictures of starvation in Ethiopia we have had brought home to us, quite literally, the enormous disparities between North and South and the blessings of our own environment. Through them we have also been shown a new dimension in suffering and resignation beyond the power of most of us to
46
comprehend. Yet still other emotions are aroused by the growing stockpile of nuclear weapons, the faltering and seemingly interminable attempts at arms control and the continuing distrust between East and West. These experiences are common thoughout the Community and it is well that there should be closer co-operation between member governments in working for solutions.
It is this co-operation—now to be extended to defence—which justifies a degree of optimism about the future. But if we are to get results, if we are to meet the legitimate expectations of our people, the Community needs to get a move on. In giving the Community a fresh impetus Britain, as a full member, has a vital part to play.
We were recently honoured by the state visit of the President of the French Republic. I cannot, however, accept the strictures implied in the comments attributed to him as reported in The Times of 24th October, when he said:
"Britain is in Europe, not in America. It is a member of the Community, and its interests are more and more oriented toward the Continent".
As a statement of geographic fact, that cannot be faulted. As an assertion of economic reality, it cannot be denied. But in so far as it seeks to imply that Britain has a choice between Europe and America it must, in my view, be wrong. For Britain has no such choice. There is nothing exclusive about membership of the Community. In terms of our political interests and the defence of freedom, we cannot be either "in" Europe or "in" America. We are "in" both.
There is no reason why the special relationship between Britain and America, which we rightly treasure, should not grow into the special relationship between Europe and America. There is no conflict in recognising that the protection of our far-flung interests and the preservation of our ties with the Commonwealth must rest upon the foundation of Community strength. There is no sense in seeking to isolate the defence of Europe as though that can somehow be secured apart from the defence of freedom everywhere. That is the emphasis which Her Majesty's Government will, I am sure, be giving to the Community now that the next steps forward have been made possible by their resolution and persistence in negotiation.
In these troubled and anxious times the Economic Community and the growing co-operation between its governments stand forth as beacons of hope. With our common heritage and culture, our shared respect for individual liberty and our commitment to democracy, for Britain to work—as the gracious Speech now pledges the Government—for the further development of the Economic Community is to lead us into a crusade in every way worthy of the best in our past and promising widespread benefit in the future.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, my first happy duty must be to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, on his maiden speech. It was uttered with conviction, with knowledge and with an ability of argument which really made it quite distinctive. He is a relative of a former statesman of this country, and the ability of his argument showed that there is

47
something in inheritance. Even those of us who differ from his views deeply appreciate the ability with which he expressed them.
During the last three months, on a mission of peace I have visited Japan, India and Sweden, and on the whole I have been encouraged by what I have heard and seen for two reasons. The first is the attitude of government representatives. In Japan I saw the Foreign Secretary; in India I saw the Foreign Secretary as well as the late Prime Minister; and in Sweden I saw the Swedish, American and Norwegian members of the Stockholm Conference. Unfortunately, the British representative was not available. From all of them I gained the same impression. They all insisted that there is now an attitude of friendliness, of co operation, among the representatives at the Stockholm Conference—that there is something approaching trust. They all argued—I think with profound correctness—that if the problems of the world are to be solved the first necessity is the development of a psychology of trust. We urged them to go on from monitoring military activities on the two sides, both East and West, to deeper proposals regarding nuclear weapons and disarmament. They replied that the first necessity which was likely to bring about agreement in monitoring military activities was to create the attitude of trust, and they were happy about the progress being made in that direction.
I felt that the climate in international relations was changing. That has been accompanied by important developments elsewhere, including the progress which is being made at the conference on disarmament in Geneva towards an international convention banning chemical weapons. It has been shown quite startlingly in the new attitude which President Reagan has shown in America; and his meeting with the Foreign Secretary of the Soviet Union, Mr. Gromyko, was an indication how he realised in his election campaign that he must begin to show a conciliatory attitude. If I may say so, this new attitude has been expressed in many ways in the speech in this House which we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
I want to urge the Government to take advantage of this new climate in international affairs in three ways. First, I want them to do all they can to ensure that the negotiations for the international convention banning chemical weapons are successful. Secondly, I want to urge this upon them. When the Soviet Union said that it would not first use nuclear weapons, both the Government in this House and Lord Carrington as the new head of NATO said that they were in favour of no first use of conventional weapons or of any weapons at all; and the Warsaw Pact have issued a declaration saying that they would be in favour of a treaty banning the first use of any kind of weapon. I beg the Government to seize this opportunity of gaining a treaty which would ban the first use of all kinds of weapons. If we ban the first use, I am not sure that it would happen at all.
Thirdly, I want to urge the Government to support the proposal for an international agreement that there shall be no further testing of nuclear weapons. The support for that all over the world is tremendous. If the Government are really in favour of moving towards disarmament, surely they must support that.
48
However, I want to go further than that. If there is this better climate in international affairs, I want to appeal to the Government to reverse their own policy in very many respects. At the United Nations the Government vote again and again—they have done so more than 20 times—against any proposal for disarmament. They even abstained on a proposal urging the ending of the testing of nuclear weapons which insisted on verification. They even abstained on that issue.
At the conference at Geneva, which was asked by the United Nations to discuss a proposal (which was supported by the majority of the old disarmament committee) for a comprehensive peace programme, the decision was reached to divide the subject into different workshops. On the majority of the committees which have been considering proposals involved in that programme, the American and British Governments have been in a minority against the majority of the non-aligned and communist countries. At Geneva they are baulking the proposal for a comprehensive peace programme. I urge the Government, if they are really serious in their desire for multilateral disarmament, to change their policy in those respects.
The second reason why I came back encouraged was my realisation of the strength of the peace movement in the world. It is now growing to such an extent that I am confident that within four years it will be so powerful as to be able to influence governments decisively, and even change the nature of governments. We are now seeking to obtain a common agreement between all the major peace movements of the world, West and East, North and South. We are asking also for a world peace conference in 1986, much broader that has yet been held, and in a non-aligned country so that it is not under the pressure of West and of East. In the next four years I expect the peace movement of the world to become so strong as to be able to realise the hopes of disarmament and peace for which many of us have struggled for so long.
4.22 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, as the first speaker from these Benches during this new Session of Parliament—and, if I may say so this afternoon, the only one left on these Benches who is proud to be a Macmillan bishop—I should like to thank the Minister for her comprehensive and perceptive speech, and to assure her and Her Majesty's Government that we share their concern for peace and justice, and for the solution of so many of the problems which confront them in so many different parts of the world.
We greatly welcome the pledge in the gracious Speech that Her Majesty's Government:
"will work continually for a greater atmosphere of trust between East and West."
Indeed, I would make bold to say that there is no more important sentence in the Speech, for it indicates that the Government are ready to take a global view of their responsibilities and to recognise, as each year goes by, that most of our present-day problems are global problems and can only be tackled by effective and sustained international co-operation. We are grateful to the noble Baroness for promising that the

49
Government will persevere in achieving this greater atmosphere of trust.
The disaster in Ethiopia, which has belatedly caught the imagination and concern of the world, has deep-seated and long-term causes which will not be met by emergency relief, essential though that is. Moreover these causes—war, drought, and poverty—are at work throughout all the poorer countries of the world, and the destitution and poverty involved can be removed only by governments acting together for the common good. The means to this end in many cases exist; the will, not only of governments but of individuals, is what has so far proved inadequate.
But few of us can fail to have been moved by the widespread and rapid response to human need once it had been brought home on television to people so dramatically and vividly. We are all grateful for the speedy help which has been forthcoming from this country, about which the noble Baroness gave us details. I hope that the nationwide response to this emergency, at a time of no little difficulty and uncertainty in our own affairs, will encourage Her Majesty's Government to believe that they have public support to give bold and imaginative leadership involving additional aid to help grapple with the problems of growing malnutrition and stark and ghastly hunger among the poor of the world.
The efforts of voluntary societies must never be underestimated. If their funds are limited, their ability to prick the conscience of the well-off nations is essential. But they would be the first to admit that the situation is so complex, the causes so deep-rooted, and any solution so long-term, that only intergovernmental action can hope to deal with it.
I know that many members of the Church of England and of the English free churches are grateful to His Eminence Cardinal Hume for undertaking an arduous journey to Ethiopia to see the situation for himself, to judge the effectiveness of the work of Christian agencies, and to assess the long-term implications for both church and state in Britain and mainland Europe. Some of your Lordships will have seen the photograph of the Cardinal receiving a cheque from the Archbishop of Canterbury just before he left. I hope that the significance of that picture was noted in all parts of the British Isles. It reflects church relations in 1984 in a way that not everybody has yet understood.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations went out of his way 10 days ago to praise the work of nongovernmental organisations, but he emphasised that despite their efforts the whole world must continue them and expand them if we are to avert a human tragedy of the gravest dimensions. He singled out the world food programme, the work of UNICEF, the Food and Agricultural Organisation, the World Health Organisation, and the United Nations Disaster Relief Office as the key agencies in the United Nations emergency programme. He stressed the work that had been done by these agencies on a long-term basis and warned that their remaining resources were rapidly diminishing.
The United Nations efforts in Ethiopia have not received a lot of publicity. During the past two years UNICEF aid has exceeded £20 million. This aid went
50
towards primary health care, and they have committed themselves to almost as large an amount during the next four years. The world food programme has covered the cost of emergency food shipments to Ethiopia. The World Bank released this year two million dollars for the transportation of emergency supplies, and the High Commissioner for Refugees has a 20 million dollar programme for displaced persons in Ethiopia.
The work of these United Nations agencies is, in my judgment, by far the most important aspect of the work of the United Nations in the modern world. The world food programme has promised 128,000 tonnes of food for Ethiopia this year. UNICEF estimates that nearly half-a-million tonnes will be needed over the next 12 months. The World Health Organisation is tackling health needs and sanitation in those areas where thousands of nomadic people have congregated just looking for food.
I am glad that the gracious Speech makes it clear that the Government will continue to play a constructive role at the United Nations; that they will maintain a substantial aid programme and that they will encourage investment in the developing countries. Television has undoubtedly alerted the Western world to this present crisis, but the issues are too complex to be dealt with by sporadic outbursts of compassion.
That is why the United Nations has issued clear and prophetic calls for international commitment to a long-term programme of relief and reform. I share the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that when the Minister replies he will be able to assure the House that the Government's constructive role at the United Nations will include responding creatively and energetically to the call for commitment to a long-term programme of relief and reform.
In an earlier passage in the gracious Speech there is an important undertaking by the Government to,
"contribute to arms control and disarmament negotiations".
This is important not only for the future peace of the world but also for the eradication of the global scandal of poverty. In the first Philip Noel-Baker memorial lecture last year Professor John Ferguson, then chairman of the United Nations Association in this country, after detailing the horrifying number of millions of people who do not have safe water to drink, who suffer from hunger and malnutrition, who are illiterate or who are blind, went on to quote General Eisenhower's familiar words:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in a final sense a theft from those who hunger and who are not fed, from those who are cold and are not clothed".
Professor Ferguson went on to say that as a Christian he shuddered each time he read the parable of the sheep and the goats, because by that parable the nations are under judgment according to whether they have or have not fed the hungry. No excuses were allowed in the Gospel story and he said that there can be no excuses allowed in today's world. We must not say that "we first have to make the world safe for democracy" or "we have to deter the Communists" or whatever. If we have not fed the hungry we have turned our back on the Lord who told the parable in order to challenge the hearts and minds of his hearers.

51
We all know in our hearts that we must not acquiesce in world hunger and world poverty, but we need a bold, imaginative and consistent lead if words are to give place to action. Dare we hope that a Government who say that they will work continuously for a greater atmosphere of trust between East and West, that they are committed to playing a constructive role at the United Nations, to maintaining a substantial aid programme and to contributing to arms control and disarmament, will surprise the world and delight the members of all parties and of none by giving the issues of world hunger and world poverty a higher priority than ever before?
4.35 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, as this is my maiden speech, and as I am well aware that in your Lordships' House there are many who have long and distinguished records in the field of foreign affairs, I ask for your Lordships' indulgence. I am glad that this, the first debate I am taking part in in your Lordships' House, was opened by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who, as I well know, has played a very notable part in consolidating our relationship with Canada.
I have a life-long belief that British foreign policy must be rooted, and be seen to be rooted, in British interests, which may seem to your Lordships to be too obvious to be worth saying. But the widespread criticisms of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the last year or two—criticisms which have saddened many of us who have spent our fives in this service—suggest that the office is not always perceived as putting British interests first. It is accused of sometimes being too ready to make bad agreements rather than have no agreement at all, of being too ready to see the other fellow's point of view, and of perhaps not having sufficient gut feeling for the welfare of the people of these islands.
Is this criticism fair? I think, by and large, it is not. After all, the Foreign Office and the Diplomatic Service can reasonably claim to have helped to maintain in the past 40 years the greatest of all British interests, which is the preservation of peace and the security of these islands, set out in the gracious Speech as the Government's first priority. It has done this by its work inside and outside NATO and in the conduct of East-West relations.
At the other end of the scale, the Diplomatic Service makes a vigorous effort to open doors for British businessmen, to increase British trade and promote investment, both inward and outward, and has done this often with marked success. When there have been setbacks in this field they have not always been the fault of the Foreign Office. For example, in Canada we used to sell large numbers of small cars such as Hillmans. Now, apart from a few Rolls-Royces, the only car we sell in Canada is the Jaguar. That is not because Canadians would not like to buy our small cars but because we cannot sell them at a price which is competitive in Canada. We have priced ourselves out of the market.
In my last years in the Diplomatic Service I had the good fortune to represent this country in Portugal and Canada, two countries with which we have a particu-
52
larly close and long-standing relationship. I learnt from that experience how much we owe to our friends, how important it is to us to keep our old friendships in good repair and never to take our old friends for granted. I was in Canada at the time of the Falklands crisis, and I shall never forget the way in which not only the Canadian Government but Canadian citizens right across the country came to our help at that time. One realises that when the chips are down one knows who one's friends are.
But British representatives overseas sometimes find that the ground appears to be cut away from under their feet by what is going on at home. For example, if one is trying to persuade an industrialist overseas to invest in this country, with all that that means in terms of economic benefits and the creation of new jobs, it does not help if the previous night he has seen on his television screen lurid scenes of clashes between British workers and the police or, unbelievably, the picketing of a children's hospital such as Great Ormond Street. Some of us have felt on occasions that we are like forgotten centurions on Hadrian's Wall while Rome is obsessed with its internal battles.
The climate of opinion in this country is quite different from that in most other countries. In my 39 years' service I served in a good many countries, and in most of them articulate opinion and certainly the press tend to be 100 per cent. or even 200 per cent. in favour of the national position. They cheer unreservedly for the home team. But that is not always so here. Articulate opinion here tends to regard itself as too sophisticated to take that sort of line, so support for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in backing British interests is sometimes half-hearted, which does not prevent the Foreign Office from being blamed when things go wrong.
Some of the criticism of the Foreign Office may, I think, have been justified, but a lot of it, I am sure, has been wide of the mark. I suppose that some of it arises because of the problems that we have with the Community, because the Foreign Office is very much identified with the Community in the public mind. But of course the most intractable of those problems, like the budget, the common agricultural policy and fisheries, are problems on which the Foreign Office was not faced with a clean sheet but which arise from the unsatisfactory terms on which we originally joined and which, as the noble Baroness has explained in her speech, we have been trying to put right over the years. Indeed, when one considers where we started from with these problems, one is reminded of the Norfolk man who, when asked the way to Norwich, replied: "If I wanted to go to Norwich I wouldn't have started from here."
Also, the public have the impression that every now and then there are unsatisfactory compromises or concessions at the expense of British interests, and this tends to damage the image of the Foreign Office. Negotiations in the Community are of course tough, prolonged and sometimes disagreeable, and the Diplomatic Service, like most of the British people, consists, I think, mainly of reasonable people and perhaps reasonable people do not always make the best negotiators. Having come into the service in the days of that great Foreign Secretary, Mr. Ernest Bevin, I sometimes feel that some of today's trade union

53
leaders might contribute more to British interests if they were to go out and tackle some of the more difficult problems in Brussels, and try to bring back the bacon from there.
I have one practical suggestion to make. There have been in the past limited exchanges between the Diplomatic Service and the home Civil Service, and occasionally with private industry. I believe that there should be much more extensive exchanges, not only between the Diplomatic Service and the home Civil Service but with nationalised industries, with private industry and even perhaps with local government and the media. I think there would be enormous advantages in both directions. For diplomatists, it would give them first-hand knowledge of some of the domestic problems of this country. Imagine, for example, someone who had served in East Yorkshire and seen for himself the deserted fish docks in Hull, who knew why they were deserted and what that meant in human terms—how much more effective he would be in dealing with fisheries problems in London or in Brussels.
On the other side of the coin, I think that, like some other countries, we have tended to become more inward looking in recent years, to take less interest in what happens overseas and perhaps to be a little insensitive to the concerns of our overseas friends. In a country as important as Canada, there was while I was there no staff correspondent from the BBC and during most of my time there was no staff correspondent from any British newspaper. I do not suppose it ever occurred to those who put up the notices at British airports saying, "UK and EEC passports this way and others that way", that our friends from Canada, Australia and New Zealand would think it odd to see those notices, which obviously suggested to them that we did not regard them as "family" but put them in the same class as the Libyans or the Albanians.
I think that exchanges of the sort I have suggested would be valuable both in our political interest overseas and in our commercial interest. I believe that foreign policy should aim to have the broad support of the British public. I do not argue that we should be like the Japanese and pursue our economic interest to the exclusion of everything else, but I think we should be realistic, that our policies should be based on facts and not on vanity and that we should construe British interests widely and generously. I believe that they should at all times be in the forefront of our minds.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, in case I hear no audible sounds of approval at the end of my speech, I will make sure of some at the beginning, first of all by adding a word of congratulation and welcome to those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, to my noble friend who sits behind me, Lord Eden of Winton. Now we have had another greatly distinguished speech from the noble Lord, Lord Moran. Those of us who remember his father may perhaps wonder what he has been doing all this time, because I think I am right in saying that the late Lord Moran died about seven years ago. I believe the answer is that the present Lord Moran, when his father died, was British Ambassador in Portugal, since when he has been our High Commissioner in Canada, thus
54
setting the seal, the climax, upon a career of public service which began, I believe, with service as an ordinary seaman in HMS "Belfast" about 41 years ago. Now he is here and, with your approval—of which I have no doubt whatever—I inform him that he is greatly welcome among us.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: He has made a remarkable speech, which it would be almost an impertinence of me to comment upon, because here we have had a speech from a master of his subject and also a master of the art, if I may say so, of making speeches. If these two noble Lords have spoken in a manner which is customary for them and typical of the kind of speeches they make, I for one hope very much that we shall hear them often in the future.
When we talk of defence and foreign affairs in the same breath—and why should we not, because one is a part of the other?—I confess to a faint feeling of foreboding of calamity, and of calamity that will be brought to pass, if it comes to pass at all, by the hand not of an enemy but of a friend. It was with this somewhat dispiriting thought in mind that I addressed myself to the possibility of speaking in this debate and doing so before I had heard what was to be said in the gracious Speech itself. And lo! when I did hear the speech a phrase quite near the beginning struck me like a ray of hope.
If your Lordships will forgive me for a moment or two, I will explain those two things: the foreboding and the hope. A remarkable event has occurred since this occasion last year, in that the Labour Party has aligned itself firmly and unequivocally with the CND, pursuing, I suppose, its relentless determination to leave unhammered no nail in its electoral coffin. But we should not suppose from that that the nuclear argument is over, and if anyone is in any doubt as to what I mean, I should perhaps explain that the "suicide note" is contained in their recent document, published I think in August, called Defence and Security for Britain. Thus—and I quote:
"Labour will, on assuming office, decommission Polaris from service"—
not Trident, which is in the future, but Polaris, which has been with us ever since the great days of my noble friend Lord Stockton and which has been approved by all governments, including Labour governments, ever since. This document also states:
"We are also committed to the unconditional removal of all United States nuclear weapons and nuclear bases from British soil and British waters."
These, the document explains, include cruise missile bases, F. 111 bases and nuclear missile submarine bases. As if that were not clear enough, they explain it thus—and this is my final quotation from the paper:
"Labour will therefore take appropriate action to ensure that the United States Government removes its nuclear weapons and nuclear delivery systems from British territory and British territorial waters."
That in effect means the end of NATO, which is nuclear or nothing, and also, the British electorate being what it has shown itself to be, the end of Labour Governments, quite possibly for ever. Nonetheless, it would be a mistake to imagine that the nuclear

55
argument is now over. The possibility that leaders in the Labour Party may once again find it expedient to change their minds need not, I think, worry us too much.
But there remains another argument which I cannot myself go along with, much as I should like to do so. I refer to the line of argument which says: "Unilateral nuclear disarmament is dangerous and wrong"—with which I entirely agree—"What is required is multilateral nuclear disarmament." What I am about to say is unfamiliar, and perhaps unacceptable, but I believe that this latter thesis—that of multilateral nuclear disarmament or mutual disarmament—is as dangerous as the former, or very nearly so.
Unilateral nuclear disarmament will leave us faced with no choice at all, other than to do as we are instructed by the Soviet Union. Mutual nuclear disarmament will leave us with just sufficient strength, just sufficient option, to resist what we are told to do and, the immense superiority of Russian power being what it is, it is likely to end in destruction, death and ruin for the world. Therefore, we are stuck with the nuclear situation, with the balance—if it remains as a balance—of deterrence. It is not an agreeable thought. This is the one thing that we want to get rid of, we mostly think. I believe this to be so. It will not always be so. Sooner or later, every climate changes, and in time this one will change, too, even if it takes 100 years. We have to live with it, and we have to make the best of the job while we are doing so.
The great obstacle that we are up against in doing so is one that has been mentioned several times this afternoon; that is, the lack of trust between the opposing sides. It is no good flying into a rage every time the Russians behave like Russians. You may say that we do not trust them and they are untrustworthy. But it is as well to think a little before we do this, because, as I indicated a sentence or two earlier, Russians are Russians and they will behave as such, so it is not reasonable to expect them to behave as though they were Englishmen. Their standards are not our standards, and we dislike them. In some cases we may think (though we are possibly mistaken in this) that we are entitled to despise them. We should accept them and know that we have to live with them.
It is no good describing them as evil. I remember that years ago I was engaged in some disagreeable transactions with the Japanese. Although I and my friends heartily disliked what we knew of the Japanese treatment of prisoners, I doubt whether at that time we ever thought of them as evil, and I certainly do not think so now. We did not like them in that connection, but they were different. Their standards were not our standards. In some cases they were higher, and in other cases they were lower. We have a similar situation now, and we have to live with it. Trust is what we have to engender. But trust is a two-way thing. We cannot simply decide to start trusting the Russians. Our part is to make the Russians trust us. This lack of trust of us by the Russians is just as great an obstacle to peace, or even to détente, as is lack of trust the other way round.
I come now to my foreboding, and it turns out that it is one which, as appears from his speech, is shared by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. There is
56
on the American side an organisation called the Central Intelligence Agency. I have referred to this before, and I shall probably refer to it again. In doing so, I say that I believe this to be the most dangerous organisation now operating in the world. It is also one of the most useful and the most important in its function as a gatherer of intelligence. This is a proper activity, which it no doubt does extremely well, and it is of great benefit to us.
But it has another characteristic which is probably unique in any body of this kind—I do not know, but I suspect this to be so—and that is that it has an executive capacity. It has money and it has power, not only to gather intelligence but to put that intelligence to use. This appears to me to be totally wrong, because, as we all know, it can and does frequently initiate military adventures and activities. In this executive field it is very often quite sensationally inefficient and disastrous. I shall not particularise about this, and noble Lords can probably think of examples of their own.
But your Lordships will perhaps remember reading a few days ago in the newpapers, after the Brighton bombing, that it had been said in Russia that the planting of the bomb had been instigated by the CIA. A wilder statement would be difficult to find, but the significance of it is that anybody should have thought it worthwhile to say and to print it, because it indicates that the CIA has itself attracted a reputation which will allow some people in the world to believe that. How can you get a reputation of that kind unless it is deserved?
I repeat something that I have also said before. My personal candidate for the Nobel peace prize, if I ever get a chance of speaking up—come to think of it, I believe that I do have a chance—will be anybody who can persuade a President of the United States to withdraw the executive function and support from the CIA. Here is the ray of hope that I spoke of at the beginning of my speech, for right at the beginning of the gracious Speech there is the statement (as has been quoted two or three times already) that the Government will continue to work for increasing trust between East and West. If I may venture to say this to my noble friend Lady Young, I think that here is an opportunity which is right handy. I need not press the matter any further than that. But the world will be greatly indebted to her and to anybody else, and people will sleep very quietly in their beds and be more confident in the future, if they can be certain that the CIA really does stand for Central Intelligence Agency and not for Casey's Instant Armageddon.
4.58 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, without allowing myself to go into lengthy congratulations to the two maiden speakers, I should nevertheless like to take this opportunity to say how very much I admired both of their speeches—the more so as both noble Lords spoke on the subjects of the European Community and the Foreign Office, which are very close to my heart. But, for my own part, I should like to touch on one aspect of foreign policy which was referred to in the gracious Speech; that of close relations between the Governments of London and Dublin. I do this both

57
out of a genuine concern and also following my membership of the Kilbrandon Committee, which was set up to consider the New Ireland Forum report from Dublin.
There can be little doubt that the maintenance of good relations between Britain and Ireland has a very high priority for, after all, so much depends on those relations being founded on mutual trust and close understanding. This, in my view, has never been truer than at the present time, when the complexities of the Northern Irish situation have evolved in such a way that it looks more and more as if the way towards their solution can only spring from a joint commitment between the two governments, working more closely together towards the attainment of that objective. Indeed, I believe it to be true that moments of change in the affairs of every nation are often brought about by various different elements in a situation coinciding. I believe that constructive movement forward is often governed by a combination of events, but there is always the risk that those moments are ignored and the danger that the opportunity is thus missed and that the opportunity of the combination of events is not seized upon.
To use the metaphor of the jigsaw, one could say that those pieces of a particular problem which were fitted together previously become displaced. May I use the background to the Falkland Islands conflict as an example, for is it not true that in 1980 some of the pieces representing a solution to that problem were beginning to fall into place but that this was not seized upon, with the tragic consequence of the Anglo-Argentinian conflict which at the same time had the effect of upturning the jigsaw and displacing the pieces previously in place?
Again using the jigsaw metaphor, may I briefly explain how I think that some pieces have been fitted into the Anglo-Irish jigsaw which makes it now so vitally necessary to press on and find more pieces to fill the remaining gaps. To do this, I should like to refer to the Kilbrandon inquiry, upon which, as I have already said, I had the privilege to sit. The introduction to the report attempted to present the realities of the present situation. It made clear that over the years both Britain and the Republic of Ireland have tended to treat Northern Ireland as a place apart, low on the political agenda of both countries, with Britain obliged to share the responsibility for any failures of the Stormont system which prevailed for 50 years, since it was she who retained sovereignty throughout that period. On the other hand, the Republic of Ireland, although having fervently beaten on the nationalist drum, have at no point made a consistent effort to come to terms with the Unionist identity in Northern Ireland.
Now, in 1984, the report makes clear that most nationalists, whatever the strength of their aspirations, do not regard a unitary state of Ireland as a practicable proposition in the foreseeable future. At the same time, there is no doubt that a majority of them first demand substantial change within Northern Ireland, involving concrete recognition of their identity; and, secondly, lack confidence in the system of law and order at present prevailing there.
From the Unionist side, the report stated that whatever nostalgia some may retain, most of them no
58
longer regard as practicable any return to the Stormont system, although their reluctance to accept substantial change is based on the fear that any change will eventually lead to increased demands for change. Finally, the report described the sinister background to it all in terms of the cost in lives and limbs and the economic and social consequences of the past 15 years of violence—violence which still has strong roots. Indeed, it must even be accepted that the perpetrators of violence have now strengthened their position by using the social and economic ills to establish a political base among their community in Northern Ireland. They have thus proved that the present status quo serves them well, and a political adjustment making that status quo less vulnerable is what they most fear.
The Kilbrandon report, having established the background realities, then went on to examine the practicalities of any proposals made by the New Ireland Forum report or by the reports from the two Unionist parties in the north who brought them out simultaneously. The role of the inquiry was thus to use those reports as agendas for discussion and, through its own recommendations, to take that discussion one step further forward. This process also had the merit of questioning and challenging long-held attitudes, positions and assumptions.
Without going into the findings of the report I should like to give one or two examples of how, in its response to the New Ireland Forum, it focused on areas in the administration of the Province where some change would be to the benefit of all the people in the Province, from both traditions. First, when examining the Forum's three frameworks for a new Ireland, the report rejected the unitary state because there is not consent for it. Secondly, it rejected the framework of federation because of the south's neutrality and the north's membership of NATO. Thirdly, it conceded that the proposals on joint authority provided real scope for improvement in the present administrative arrangements in the north and outlined what many of those improvements might be.
Secondly, the report ruled out alternatives such as independence for the north, full integration with the United Kingdom and repartition—options which have often been under discussion. Thirdly, the inquiry identified the common position of all the Northern Irish political parties in calling for a Bill of Rights for the Province and went even further in suggesting a simultaneous Bill for the south. Fourth, under the all-important heading of law enforcement, the inquiry examined new methods of controlling terrorism, proposing ways in which Dublin and London should co-operate in presenting a common front to the terrorists. These proposals included changes in the criminal justice system, making it more acceptable to the Catholic minority community without jeopardising the confidence of the Protestant community; proposals as to how the RUC should be expanded and should have a strengthened police authority while at the same time the UDR should gradually be run down, with reciprocal rights of "hot pursuit" in border areas. These, and many others, were suggestions as to how present law enforcement could be strengthened.

59
The inquiry brought out many other proposals, some more radical than others, as to the degree of Dublin's involvement in solving the northern problem; but the underlying motive was the wish to break old moulds and to question long-held attitudes and positions. This brings me back to my first point, which was that the right timing creates opportunities which must not be lost. I believe that the realities of the present Northern Irish situation, together with the slightly shifting attitude of its peoples, coinciding with the Dublin initiative, seem to provide a vital opportunity to seek progress. It is important to recognise that the changes needed to create that progress would not be made in response to paramilitary pressure but in response to the overtures of a friendly government and the expressed concern of the constitutional parties, both nationalist and unionist, in the whole of Ireland.
May I therefore end by urging the Government to seize the opportunity presented to them by the present combination of these circumstances. May I urge them to continue with the discussion opened by the New Ireland Forum report from Dublin. May I also urge them to put Northern Ireland, as Dubin has, higher on their political agenda and, reinforced by greater co operation with Dublin, to make a concerted effort in the present to defeat terrorism and to achieve the peace and stability which the people of Northern Ireland so ardently crave.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by adding my congratulations to those of other noble Lords on the two maiden speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, and the noble Lord, Lord Moran. They were distinguished contributions to the proceedings of your Lordships' House. I am sure that they will be the first of many such contributions from both noble Lords.
In other circumstances, I should have liked to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, down his "Star Wars" road. He delivered an eloquent and well-informed exposition of one side of the argument but, like all one-sided arguments, his remarks contained a number of doubtful assumptions and some tendentious propositions which could be refuted without too much trouble by somebody who takes the opposite view. However, I must resist the temptation because events have unfolded in this country in 1984 which must cause even more grave disquiet than "Star Wars" to anybody concerned with the survival of liberal democracy and free political institutions. A police officer has been killed in the heart of London by a gunman using a foreign embassy as a terrorist base. There has been an attempt to murder the Prime Minister and most of the Cabinet—an attempt which killed or maimed a number of innocent people. And an industrial dispute is being used as a pretext by extremists to bring down the elected Government of this country by a systematic, violent and organised assault on the fabric of our society.
A debate on foreign affairs is not the time to analyse the phenomenon of industrial violence, although I hope that at least some noble Lords may be disposed to do so in tomorrow's debate. All I would say is that
60
eight years ago I made a speech in your Lordships' House in which I called attention to subversion and extremism in this country. At that time what I said was dismissed in some quarters as scaremongering and union bashing. Yet anyone who has a moment to glance through that speech now may agree that most of the worst fears it reflected have been realised. Today, I want briefly to bring into focus another facet of this pervasive threat to freedom and order. It is the subject of a significant undertaking in the gracious Speech, in which it is said that the Government,
"will make vigorous efforts to combat international terrorism".
The emergency of international terrorism as a major threat to Western security can be demonstrated to anyone who is not yet fully convinced of it by a few vivid statistics. In 1969—less than 15 years ago, when records of terrorist incidents were first systematically collated—there were 200 incidents. By 1979 this figure had risen to 650. In 1983—last year—there were 800 terrorist incidents, and the number is still rising. In fact, since 1968 there have been 8,000 terrorist attacks, resulting in the deaths of 4,000 men, women and children and the wounding of 8,000 more.
There is one other figure even more significant than those. Of all the terrorist attacks recorded since 1968, nearly two-thirds of them—61 per cent.—have been directed against targets in North America and Western Europe. Of the remainder, 31 per cent. have taken place in the Middle East and in Latin America. None has been directed against targets in the Communist world. The targets are Mrs. Thatcher, the Pope, American generals, and Western ambassadors—not the leaders and representatives of totalitarian régimes.
The simple conclusion to be drawn from this is that international terrorism is nothing else than a form of low-intensity warfare conducted against the liberal democracies of the West. I assume that it is no longer necessary to spend too much time demonstrating that this war on democracy is waged by a network of international terror. Its sponsors, its paymasters, and its suppliers of arms, training and equipment are states which have a clear political interest in destabilising and demoralising the West. This is not to suggest that every terrorist act which takes place in the world is centrally planned and organised: to suggest that would clearly be ridiculous. It is true, however, that there are a number of countries which exploit, encourage and support political terrorism wherever it will further their aims.
At the centre of this network—and I have said this before in your Lordships' House and say it again now—is the Soviet Union, which, usually through the medium of its clients in the Middle East, provides the training and the finance. It is now fully documented that until the Israeli invasion of the Lebanon, the PLO were being trained in more than 50 camps in the Communist bloc, 40 of them in the Soviet Union itself. The links between the PLO and the Baader Meinhof group in Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy, the Basque separatists in Spain and the other terrorist organisations of the world are now so fully documented that no one any longer even bothers to discuss them or deny them.
Perhaps the most important traffic from our point of view is that with the IRA. Although the IRA has

61
had exchanges of equipment and training with many other terrorists groups all over the world, its most significant link is with Libya. There are regular training programmes held in Libya for the IRA. It is almost certain that McMahon—one of the murderers of Lord Mountbatten—was trained in Libya. And, if anyone is still in doubt about the Libyan connection or believes it to be a fevered figment of the imagination, let me provide two brief quotations.
After the IRA bomb outrages in London in 1976, the official Libyan news agency carried the following announcement:
"These bombs which are convulsing Britain and breaking its spirit are bombs of the Libyan people. We have sent bombs to the Irish revolutionaries so that Britain will pay the price of her past deeds".
Although Colonel Gaddafi tried to play that down at the time, much more recently—after the murder of the policewoman in April of this year—Gaddafi himself said of the IRA—and again I quote directly from a transcript of his remarks:
"This is a just cause and we are not ashamed of supporting it with all the means we have".
The fact is that there is a network of violence—an international league of terror—and the IRA are a part of it.
I submit that it is a matter of very great urgency that the governments and peoples of the free world should now understand the real nature of the threat which confronts them. Time is not on our side because there are three separate developments which, taken together, may move terrorism into a new dimension and bring death and destruction into all our lives on a scale which we have not yet begun to contemplate.
The first of these is the increasing involvement of governments in the sponsorship of terrorism. There are now at least four countries in the Middle East engaged in state-sponsored terrorism—most of them, direct or indirect clients of the Soviet Union. This means that terrorist groups can be provided with training, logistical support and safe sanctuary on a scale which they could never hope to achieve on their own. What is much more important, they can now deploy weapons of a sophistication and destructive power which they would be incapable of manufacturing on their own. The hexagon bomb which caused the appalling destruction at the American embassy in Beirut was supplied by one of the Arab states to which I have just referred. The people who detonated that bomb could never have begun to construct it for themselves.
The second closely-connected development is the constant improvement in the technology of destruction. As long ago as 1976 the United States National Advisory Committee Task Force on Disorder and Terrorism warned us all of the possibility that terrorist groups might begin to make use of weapons of mass destruction. They said at the time that it would be difficult for terrorists on their own to manufacture nuclear devices. What they did not foresee was that less than 10 years after their report, international terrorists might have behind them countries whose leaders are known to have been seeking for some time the capacity to make or to acquire nuclear weapons.
It is not only against the nuclear terrorist that we now have to guard. Chemical and biological weapons
62
are not so difficult to manufacture as nuclear weapons. There have already been several cases in the United States of extremist groups being detected experimenting with chemical and micro-biological agents. When the Symbionese Liberation Army—the group which abducted the notorious Miss Patricia Hearst—was finally tracked down by the American security forces, among the equipment found at their headquarters was a whole library of handbooks on chemical warfare; on how to construct and how to use chemical weapons.
The third development is the emergence of the suicidal terrorist. In the past the terrorist has always placed self-preservation very high on his list of priorities. Indeed, as our own experience of the IRA has demonstrated, the archetypal terrorist is a cowardly creature whose idea of a hard target is a department store at Christmas time and whose favourite weapon is the delayed-action bomb, detonated long after he is safely back in his bolt-hole. But now from the Iran of Ayatollah Khomeini there has emerged the Shi'ite fanatic—a kamikaze-type killer for whom death in the pursuit of the Jehad, or holy war, is a guarantee of eternal glory. It was these people who carried out the suicidal attacks in the Lebanon against the American marine base and the American embassy. If they are ordered to do so in pursuit of the aims of Islamic fundamentalism they will repeat those deeds in any part of the world with weapons provided by their political masters for whom the export of the Islamic revolution by any means is an article of faith.
We are then, in my view, faced with a threat more immediate than that of conventional attack or strategic nuclear devastation. We should be devoting as much attention to it as we do to these more familiar dangers. Terrorists are at war with us and we must declare war on the terrorists. The most urgent need is for those countries which are the targets of terrorism to co-operate, closely, continuously and systematically. Edmund Burke once wrote:
"When bad men combine, the good must associate, else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
Together, the Western democracies have the military and economic power as well as the technological expertise to operate far more effectively than we can ever do separately. We must improve the collection, collation and exchange of intelligence on terrorist organisations. Advances in information technology now make the instant exchange of information—what is called real time intelligence—between data banks in all the countries of the Western world a relatively simple matter.
I believe that we should now consider the establishment of an international counter-terrorist organisation, pooling the experience and techniques of organisations like the SAS and their counterparts elsewhere in the free world. We must take collective diplomatic action to isolate and quarantine from the civilised world those countries which sponsor terrorism or give sanctuary to those who practise it in any form. It is, to me, simply astonishing that we are prepared to rub shoulders in the United Nations and other international meeting places with countries whose governments send bombs to the IRA, give

63
training to assassins, and shelter to hijackers of aircraft and murderers of children.
I am aware that Her Majesty's Government are already giving great attention to this problem together with the governments of other democratic countries. I do not suggest for one moment that nothing is being done. But I suggest that we, the citizens of this country, need to experience a greater sense of urgency. I should like to see the setting up of a really high level interdepartmental task force to consider this problem and to co-ordinate anti-terrorist activities. As part of this we need to abandon our apparently defensive and reactive approach to terrorism. We must not wait passively for the next murderous incident and then simply pursue—not often successfully—the people who have perpetuated it. We must embark on a policy of preventive and pre-emptive action; and this applies to the IRA as much as to any other organisation in the league of terror.
Whenever our intelligence organisations detect preparations for a terrorist attack we should move swiftly and ruthlessly to neutralise the terrorists before they can strike. If, at times, this involves problems of national boundaries or national sovereignty, that may be something we shall have to accept. Those who harbour and give aid and comfort to murderers cannot expect to hide behind the niceties of civilised international behaviour.
I expect that to some people all this may seem draconian and hawkish, but the only alternative is to wait—and we may not have to wait too long—until there is some quite appalling act of terrorist violence in this country or in the country of one of our allies; an assault on our lives and on our senses beside which the bombs at Harrods, Hyde Park and Brighton will pale into insignificance. It will be a little late then to look for the terrorist; indeed, he may have already died with his victims.
This is a war that we can win but which, I fear, we look more and more like losing. In my view, there must be no sanctuary, no freedom of movement and no mercy for the terrorists. If anyone should protest that we are adopting the standards of the terrorist in order to defeat him, I suggest that there is a limit at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue. I remind your Lordships that the pages of history are littered with the chronicles of civilisations which died because they were too civilised to defend themselves.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, like other speakers I, too, congratulate our two maiden speakers today. In particular, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moran, on his important description of the difficulties of being a British official during a time of relative national decline. Those of us who had previously admired his life of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman were not surprised by his literary qualities, but we could be excused if we were surprised by his eloquence. We look forward to hearing him again.
Trade, tourism and terrorism, to which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has just devoted such an effective, timely and important speech; environmental problems; the relation of our ethnic minorities with
64
their own relations in poorer countries; Europe; the fact that we still, though not a super-power, have major global responsibilities; the fact that we are, as it were, the geographical hinge of freedom lying between Europe and the United States—all these things make an agile and determined foreign policy an essential part of Government activities.
My noble friend Lord Young of Graffham, in a maiden speech a week or two ago, alluded to the increasingly hostile world in which British traders have to operate. We know that in order to change that increasingly hostile world in a way that we should wish, to our benefit and to theirs, towards encouragement of free trade, towards respect for contracts and the establishment of good bases for investment, our own economy would have to recover more than it has as yet done. Nevertheless, even now we know that we are expected, and we ourselves expect our Government, to support the idea of good government in other countries: that good government which alone in the long run, as we all know, can prevent such tragedies which are now being seen in Ethiopia from occurring, to which reference has naturally been made.
All these aspects of our political life make it surprising that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is not required, and in fact does not wish, to prepare annually a statement on foreign policy rather on the lines of the annual White Paper on defence. Such a paper would relate the smaller questions, and the bigger ones, to the larger purposes—Henry Kissinger's phrase—against which all foreign policy is played out.
It might even be that if such a White Paper were annually prepared the Foreign and Commonwealth Office might sustain the case that it should have a larger annual budget than the £600 million which it now receives; and it might even sustain an argument that there should be more than one Minister in the Cabinet to discuss foreign and international affairs—as, after all, noble Lords will remember used always to be the case when there was a Secretary of State for India, for the Commonwealth and for the Colonies a relatively short time ago. Furthermore, we all know that to have to put things together in some conceptual form always helps us to keep our priorities in the right order; and, who knows, this might assist the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to have an even wider, and even wiser, range of foreign policy decisions.
Let me explain what I mean. It is obvious that during the next Session noble Lords from all sides of the House will put a bewilderingly large number of questions to my noble friend and her colleagues on subjects as various as, for example, the reason why the Government seem to have greater partiality than was previously expected for multilateral rather than bilateral aid, whereas all the evidence is that multilateral aid is more difficult to monitor. Other noble Lords will wish to question the reasons for the major diplomatic defeat which we (that is to say, the West) have met in UNESCO in allowing it to get into the state in which it now is, whether or not we remain within the organisation at all.
Other noble Lords will wish to press my noble friend even further on questions of the relation between the European Community and defence than she most

65
gratifyingly went in her speech today. Still other noble Lords will perhaps suggest that the character of the war in Afghanistan merits a greater international or United Nations investigation than it has received. Some noble Lords may remember that after the war—at the time of the Greek civil war, for example—there was a United Nations commission on the Balkans which drew attention to the atrocities perpetrated by the Communists, including the kidnapping of children, and which was of importance in bringing that war to the successful end that actually occurred.
Still other noble Lords will press the Minister on such questions as whether the conventional wisdom which used to apply in the Middle East—that if the Arab-Israeli quarrels could only be resolved the major source of Middle East troubles would be out of the way—should be re-examined. All these important questions will no doubt be put, and they will be courteously and expertly answered. But I suggest that it would be easier for the Government to give answers to all these and other questions if they did that against a coherently worked-out—conceptualised—foreign policy, which they would put forward annually in this and in another place.
This paper could also discuss and go further into the questions of what the Government hope to achieve in the future—not what has happened in the recent past, but what they would like to see occur in the immediate, and perhaps in the long-term, future. For example, we are members of a large number of international organisations. How do the Government see some of those evolving in future? What, for example, is our policy towards the Commonwealth? We are members of this, and the gracious Speech alludes to the importance of that membership. Do we wish to expand membership of the Commonwealth so that it will one day embrace all ex-colonies or ex-dependencies of the British Empire? Do we want perhaps to use it in order to promote our other foreign policies—our disposition in favour of free trade, and our expectation that representative government is the best bet for most societies? Surely we should strive to give this important association a specific purpose. Furthermore, we could debate whether the Commonwealth might not itself consider expelling members which became Marxist, as Grenada did last year and in the months before. That certainly might save a recurrence of that particular type of crisis, which caused such heart-searching 12 months ago.
Then there is the question of Europe. The noble Baroness referred to the future development of the European Community, as indeed does the gracious Speech. But what exactly in the gracious Speech does "development" really mean, and what does it really lead to? Let us assume, for example, that we have done all the short-term things which the Government would like to do; that we have in fact achieved the united Common Market, including a common market in services. Let us suppose that we have brought in successfully Spain and Portugal. Let us suppose that, indeed, we have done as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, suggested should be done in that context, and let us suppose that we have resolved the question of Gibraltar. What then would happen? What will our aims be within the European Community? This is a long-term and important question, and one to which
66
we should address ourselves. What we want to be certain about is whether we can continue to partake of the benefits of an increasingly politically self-conscious Common Market and customs union without at the same time creating within the European Community an even larger national state at the Brussels level, of which we have had such bad experiences in our own national lives in the twentieth century.
Then there is the question of the Soviet Union, to which a lot of attention has been paid during the course of this debate, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who seemed to me in some of his remarks to be suggesting that the Soviet Union was more like a misunderstood whale than an adversary—a large enterprise, certainly, but with very inadequate jaws for dealing with the rest of its neighbours. This would suggest that he has abandoned the view that the Soviet Union is interested in imperialism as well as in ideology. We should like to see in such a Government White Paper as I am suggesting some consideration of how the Government see the interrelation between ideology and imperialism in the Soviet Union.
We should like to know whether, in welcoming Mr. Gorbachev next week and Mr. Gromyko next year, the Government feel that they, and indeed any other foreseeable Soviet leader, can be expected to think of the West in a different way from that which they have in the past. Hitherto we have all assumed that the Soviet Union looked on other states which were not a part of the Soviet world as, in the first instance, capitalist states anxious to attack them, and, in the second instance, states which are in a transitional stage, on their way to becoming Soviet states of their own; and with those states (that is to say, with us) the Soviet Union would not naturally be able to make any firm agreements, since, after all, agreements in the Soviet ideology are mere halts on the route—short-term arrangements, to be altered when the correlation of forces, as they put it, becomes favourable to Moscow. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has given a different picture of the Soviet Union. That is the picture which we are more accustomed to think is valid.
These are some of the questions to which I feel the Government might well devote attention in a White Paper on foreign policy. There are other, even more important, even more difficult and even more interesting questions, and it is upon some of these that I suggest and hope that the noble Baroness might persuade her colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to brood in future.
5.41 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I too should like to pay tribute to the two maiden speakers tonight: the noble Lord, Eden of Winton, and the noble Lord, Lord Moran. Being myself a recent maiden speaker, and without the quite clear experience that these two speakers have, I am full of admiration for the forceful and elegant way in which they delivered their speeches. I look forward, as I am sure do all of your Lordships, to hearing the noble Lords again.
I was puzzled first by the very brief reference in the gracious Speech to the amount of aid which was going to be maintained. I considered it slightly ambiguous. I did not quite understand what maintaining substantial aid really meant. I can only put the very best

67
interpretation on that and assume that at least we are going to maintain the level of aid to the third world which is already current but which, as your Lordships are well aware, is well below the amount of aid which, with other countries, we pledged to the poor countries of the third world early in the 'seventies.
The situation that we are facing in sub-Saharan Africa at the moment is horrifying and mind numbing. Many noble Lords have drawn to our attention the horrors of Ethiopia. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said quite rightly—and nobody would disagree with her—that the British Government and the European Community have reacted quite properly and with great energy to this crisis. However, as has been referred to by other speakers, this crisis has been developing for many, many years. The crisis is not isolated or confined to Ethopia. It is a famine or hunger which stretches, or which will stretch right down the eastern coast of Africa. It is already being felt in Somalia. It is being felt quite severely in parts of Kenya, in Tanzania, in Mozambique, in Zambia and in Zimbabwe. We are now seeing only the tip of the iceberg.
There is no particular devil-given curse on this part of the world that they should suffer these disasters. Indeed, climate population and other factors, which are often put forward as causes of these horrors in this part of the world, are only a small part of the problem. I have been visiting Africa now for 15 years. I am fully aware that other of your Lordships have a much greater knowledge of Africa than I and have seen the development of this part of the world over a far longer period. However, over 14 or 15 years I have seen a very marked and dramatic deterioration of the standard of living of people in these countries, which are some of the poorest countries in the third world.
I cannot help thinking that the main cause of the problem is that the developed world has not yet reached the frame of mind where it can see the problems of the third world as separate from the major problem which the west is facing, which is the east-west confrontation. Many countries in that part of sub-Saharan Africa were at one time coloured red on our map. They were part of our Empire. Many of these East African countries have been granted independence by us. However, I think that many of them are only now realising that they have had only a half-independence: they have been given an independence with, as it were, an umbilical cord which still ties them to a kind of conventional wisdom, and an economic structure which has limited their development since independence. I feel that with the enormous problems which confront us in the developed world, we have not recognised that we have failed to adjust our own system of dealing with the third world. Because of this, we have failed to give them a chance to be able, peacefully and along the lines which we would seek, to develop into democratic or near-democratic countries where we could observe a peaceful and improving status for the inhabitants.
The figures which we have are absolutely staggering. Like some of those used as euphemisms in elections and so on, figures are often beyond our comprehension. We are told by the aid agencies—and the figures do not vary very much—that in the developing world
68
500 million people are suffering from some degree of hunger or hunger-related illnesses. These are mind blowing figures. These kinds of figures come into the realms of the horrible fantasies of the number of people killed by atomic bombs in atomic warfare. 800 million people live in abject poverty. That is the kind of poverty which is totally unacceptable to humane thinking people the world over. We are told that 15 million children die in infancy in these countries. It is very hard to comprehend 15 million people. That is a figure equivalent to that of the larger part of the population of a country like Norway or Sweden. We are told that these figures will increase if radical and constructive thought is not applied to the problems of the third word.
If we go on obsessively thinking about our own problems and maintaining our own structures in the developed world, if we continue to think in terms of the economic theories of the time of independence of these countries, I am quite sure that these figures will grow to the extent where governments will fall. It will then be impossible for us to combat infiltration from sinister forces interested only in destabilisation and other things which we fear.
So we are now faced with the obviously very real and sympathetic view of the British Government. They say that they will maintain substantial aid to the third world. But what kind of aid will that be? Aid, so far as I have observed it in the sub-Saharan African countries, has been very, very insignificant in terms of its effect on the inhabitants of these poorer countries. On some of the very poor countries its effect has been almost non-existent.
It seems to me that, apart from food aid to which I shall return in a moment, aid is concentrated on too many sophisticated projects, on too many sophisticated schemes and on to many grandiose schemes. These are schemes which are way beyond the scope of many of these countries to operate themselves. Many of the schemes entail imports of expensive equipment which is far too sophisticated. There are expensive schemes for prestige purposes, such as airports, and so on. In the agricultural aid we see schemes for irrigating large parts of countries such as Kenya, where the plan is to grow cash crops rather than food crops. This is one of the great and continuing problems of these African countries where the land that is used to grow food to feed people is gradually diminishing. Those developing their land are being pushed into smaller and smaller areas and are being forced to grow crops that will, in theory, bring in foreign exchange with which to buy food. This represents a thinking that really has to be altered. We have to go back to considering whether it should not be a priority to create some kind of stabilisation by encouraging the countries themselves to train their people to develop their land, to grow the crops and to grow the food that will feed them so creating a political stability from which it is possible to bring them into a more compatible relationship with the industrialised world and enable them to play their part in the kind of problems that we have to face.
I speak to many Africans in prominent positions. They are amazed, when dealing with very right-minded and very proper officials of official agencies such as the World Bank and the International

69
Monetary Fund, at the kind of questions that they have to answer. They are amazed at the fear of Communists behind every acacia tree. Most of these people, in countries like Uganda and Tanzania, are concerned with developing their countries. In the case of Uganda, which has been through a complete destruction of its infrastructure, their only wish is to get on to a stable road, a road to recovery. They find it curious that we should have concerns so far removed from the basic concerns of the people of those countries.
It is certainly possible for the countries of East Africa to grow enough food to feed all their people and to reduce the potential horror that now faces them. Ethiopia should be a lesson to the world. It is a lesson that has arrived late. Many people have been crying the warnings about Ethiopia. Unfortunately the reality of the aid that is now being given and the philanthropic gestures that have been made—and our country has been in the forefront of this, which is not out of character because we are a compassionate people—is that very few of the starving people will actually receive the food being sent to them. The reason is that they do not have the capability of moving it. You can parachute in food; you can bring in food by aeroplane. But, unless you have the runways, the roads and the infrastructure, there is no way in which you can distribute that food in time.
Even as I speak, many children, middle-aged people and old people are dying. This is because of a lack of imagination, of the inability to use our imagination, in the shadow of greater problems that obsess us. We have to divorce the problems of the Western world, the East-West confrontation, from the problem of hunger in the third world. A future which benefits the populations of these countries, which, in the long run, keeps them in a relationship with us and which gives us a prospect of partnership with them, can only be achieved by a radical rethinking and a radical new approach.
My hope is that it will not take an increase in these abhorrent and extraordinary figures of misery that we hear from Africa today before we realise that we must get round the table. If we cannot get round the table with the United States, we must get round the table with Europe. A noble Lord in his maiden speech mentioned that we must be part of Europe and part of the relationship with the United States. We must use our imagination and create the right environment for producing a result that will be a lesson and an example to the rest of the world.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Caradon: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the two maiden speakers with us today and to turn to the subject raised earlier by the leader of my party. It is an important question relating to the whole future of world policy for dealing with disputes and dangers. It is the question of the tradition and the role of the United States. We have read in the papers and listened today to accounts of the triumph of the President of the United States. In sending him, as I am sure the House would wish, our congratulations on his triumph, I should like to express the hope that his second term will be far more effective and far more successful than the first. I believe that it is of first
70
importance to the world that the United States should look back on its previous policies and decide to think again, that the United States should decide that it is necessary not merely to persist and pursue what has been said before but to take a new look at the principal disputes and dangers in the world, and to think again. I hope it may be.
I shall look for a minute or two at the main disputes of the world, as I know them from my own personal experience, to see what hope might exist of a change of attitude by the United States Government, and indeed by our Government, because our Government in these matters so frequently have merely reiterated the American view. I can perhaps take first the Middle East, where, way back in 1967, we all voted for a unanimous resolution. Since then the United States has been pouring vast sums of money in the direction of those who have been carrying out policies directly opposed to those agreed at that time. It has been going on for many years. There should surely be a review. The whole matter should be looked at again. There should be an endeavour to find a better way than merely subscribing money to defeat the purpose we have approved.
I feel some anxiety in the matter. A week or two ago—not long ago—there was a resolution in the United Nations about the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Southern Lebanon. The necessity for withdrawal is very widely approved and agreed in the world. I recall that I felt some shock, when reading of that resolution, to find that it was vetoed by the United States. It seems to me when we agreed and voted for the proposition of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, and after all the suffering, bloodshed and miseries that the invasion of the Lebanon has caused, that the action of the United States in vetoing a resolution, very widely supported by pretty well the whole world, is an indication that the review that I speak about, the necessity to think again, is very great today in the Middle East.
I think also of the situation in regard to Southern Africa, and in particular Namibia. There again there was a unanimous vote that Namibia should be free, should be allowed free elections; the United Nations should provide the means and the security to enable those elections to go forward. That happened years ago, a decade ago, but it has been prevented. How was it prevented? By the insistence of South Africa that before freedom could be considered for Namibia it was necessary to settle the problem of the Cuban troops in Angola. Consequently the decision of the United Nations, supported by everyone, has been frustrated, deliberately frustrated by the United States supporting the view of South Africa that the question of Angola must be considered first. So there is another example of the attitudes of the United States in the past, which we hope may be reviewed and changed without delay.
It was not so long ago—a day or two ago, was it not?—that I read of a resolution in the United Nations condemning the regime of apartheid in South Africa. To my sorrow, but scarcely to my surprise, the resolution, which was so widely supported in the United Nations, led to the United States refusing to vote. We do not have to look very far for other examples.

71
Cyprus is a case in which our country took a positive position as a guarantor of the Cyprus solution which had been arrived at. There has been an attempt. It is continuing now, and good luck to it. I agree with and support what has been said in praise of the Secretary General of the United Nations in his endeavours. Not so very long ago it was proposed that the very substantial financial aid which is given to Turkey by the United States might continue to be given, by all means, but that a condition might be laid down that a start at any rate should be made in order to resolve and deal with the dispute which divided the island. A part of Varosha, near Famagusta, which had been in the hands of the Greeks should be allowed to go back as a start—no more than a start—towards some settlement. No! The decision of the United States was that the money would be paid to Turkey with no conditions at all.
We will remember in this country, and certainly in this House, that these decisions in regard to the Middle East, in regard to Namibia and in regard to Cyprus—all of them 10 years old—have been frustrated by the refusal of the United States, backed by the United Kingdom, to carry out decisions which we had ourselves recorded. Ten years later we have failed to carry them out. That is the situation.
Again, quite recently we had the opportunity to see how the world could agree on the law of the sea, backed by many more than 100 countries. The United States came forward, having taken a full part in the 20 years of preparation of this magnificent result of international negotiation, and said,"No, it must not happen." No one can quite see what can happen now, but the refusal of the United States to participate in this world endeavour is a setback of very great proportions.
Then, again, we see what is happening in regard to UNESCO. It may have many faults but it has achieved considerable successes. Would it not be better to work to improve any failures that there have been? No, no. The United States attitude is that it would be better to refuse to contribute, and in fact to bring the agency to an end.
I say these things because it is very important that, in a new situation, we in Europe and we in this country in particular should surely make it our main effort to work as closely as we possibly can with the United States Government to review all these problems—the Middle East, Namibia, the law of the sea—and see if it is necessary that we should preserve the negative, frustrating attitude which has dominated the discussion of these important subjects. It is important to look back and to realise that in the four great issues I have referred to there has been failure, due to the reason which I explained: but it is even more important to think about the future.
I suppose the Middle East is the most dangerous area of the world. There is a movement on behalf of the Sovet Union to have a world conference on the Middle East. Many people, certainly including myself, believe that it is not necessary to have a world conference. One has the Security Council of the United Nations available now, where all concerned can participate. Why should it not be possible to move
72
to the organisation which was created in order to deal with these dangers? Why should it be that we are doing nothing about it? Why should it be that the United States refuses to take the matter to the Security Council, and refuses not only the world conference but to allow this main danger in the world to be dealt with by the organisation which was set up to deal with exactly those dangers?
So I put it to your Lordships that the day of the great triumph of President Reagan must surely be a day when all his friends should be prepared to work with him and his great country, and through the United Nations Organisation, not to take decisions and do nothing for 10 years but to tackle the problem in a sensible way, without delay, and end the decade of drift and delay which has placed us in a much greater danger than most of us are prepared to recognise.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, as a delegate to the Assembly of the WEU and present at the meeting of that assembly in Rome on 29th October, following the joint meeting of the Foreign and Defence Ministers of the seven member states of WEU—incidentally, the first occasion when there has been such a joint meeting; and incidentally, also, unfortunately on the same day on which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, introduced this subject for debate in this House—I should like to say something about current intentions to use WEU to a greater extent as a means of increasing European defence co-operation.
There are two questions. Is a greater measure of European defence co-operation desirable, and, if so, is WEU the proper means to set about this? What can be achieved by a greater measure of European defence co-operation? There is at present great duplication of effort in the field of weapons research and development. This in turn leads to an excessive number of models of equipment being brought into service by different member states, usually produced by their own national industries. That in turn leads to an alarming contrast in the degree of standardisation of equipment between, on the one side, the NATO countries, and, on the other side, the Warsaw Pact.
So the possibility exists to achieve financial savings and greater efficiency by more co-operation in arms research and production. Of course, I appreciate that there are obstacles, in particular perhaps those posed by the competition between national arms industries for export markets, which leads to a tendency to be secretive. Nevertheless, in my view this is a problem that should be tackled.
Secondly, there is a value in European countries developing the means to discuss security questions which arise outside the NATO area—something which has often proved to be extremely difficult in NATO. Thirdly, it is important from the point of view of the Americans that the Europeans are seen to be taking steps to improve their collective defence. It is wrong to suppose that the Americans will see such activity as indicating a desire on the part of Europe to break away from NATO. On the contrary, the Americans are much more likely to be provoked if Europe does nothing.

73
But I would go further than that. I think that the Europeans should discuss among themselves what they will do if the Americans eventually require Europe to take over more of its own defence. It would be reckless to assume that we have seen the last of all attempts to initiate the withdrawal of United States troops from Europe as a result of the defeat of the Nunn Amendment in the United States Senate last summer. I do not foresee the end of the United States nuclear guarantee, all the less so for as long as Britain and France retain their own credible, independent nuclear deterrents. But I can foresee a United States request that Europe should shoulder a greater share of the responsibility for its own conventional defence, even perhaps 100 per cent. of that responsibility. In that event it would be much better if this contingency has been planned for within a European institution and if such an institution had had an active existence for some years before it was required to organise a replacement in the field.
As for the question of the appropriate institution, I point out that WEU only emerged after the EEC had failed—most recently when the Genscher/Colombo plan (which proposed security discussions within political co-operation) was objected to by the Danes, the Irish and the Greeks. That meant that something else had to be tried and WEU was the natural alternative: first, because it consists of the 10 states of the Community less the three states who held objections; and secondly, because it is fair to say that it has always been primarily an institution with defence functions.
According to the ministerial decision reached in Rome, foreign and defence Ministers of the member states of WEU will now meet together at least twice a year. The intention, according to the declaration issued in Rome, is for the Ministers to hold comprehensive discussions and to seek to harmonise their views on specific conditions of security in Europe including among other things, defence questions; Europe's contribution to the strengthening of the Atlantic Alliance; and the development of European co-operation in the field of armaments, in respect of which, in the words of the declaration,
"WEU can provide a political impetus"—
in other words, it is not intended to abandon or replace other existing institutions such as the Independent European Programme Group—and the Ministers may also, in the words of the declaration:
"consider the implications for Europe of crises in other regions of the world".
In my view this is all progress in the right direction, but I should like to say something on the question of additional members, before leaving the subject of WEU. It is natural that, as WEU appears to be developing a more vital role for itself, other states should express the wish to join. First, I should like to point out that, under Article XI of the modified treaty, the initiative lies with the member states and not with the states wishing to accede. Article XI provides that the:
"High Contracting Parties [the member States] may by agreement invite any other State to accede to the present treaty on conditions to be agreed between them and the State so invited. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing an instrument of accession with the Belgian Government".
74
In other words, there is no provision for states to lodge an application to join. This, of course, is unlike the provisions of Article 237 of the Rome treaty establishing the European Communities. I think that the member states should think very carefully before they issue any invitations to accede to the treaty. Indeed, they should go further and make it clear without delay that they do not intend to issue any invitations for the time being, at least until they have established what WEU can do with its present membership.
All of us can think of good reasons why this or that country would make a good member of WEU, but experience with the European Community has shown that no one wishes to cause disappointment to what is represented as the expectant population of an applicant state, and so one country joins. Thereafter no one wishes to offend the second country to apply by refusing its application, when the first country has been accepted, and so on. The result is that the right to apply to join becomes, in effect, the right to join. Yet the revival of WEU is only taking place because the larger grouping of the European Community failed for the purpose for which it was required. So WEU should have been warned.
I should like now to turn from the WEU to the European Community. In this respect I should like to follow my noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton in expressing thanks to the noble Baroness for what she had to say in her opening remarks on this subject, which I thought was very encouraging. I should also like to echo what my noble friend Lord Eden of Winton said in his most excellent and concise maiden speech, with every word of which I think I agreed. I thought that he implied—and certainly I should like to suggest—that the settlement of the budget dispute has now given this country an opportunity to play a greater role in the leadership of Europe and, I would add, not leave all major initiatives to the French and the Germans.
There is plenty to be done in Europe, but of all things the most important seems at the present time to be to try and make a reality of the internal market. The supposedly common market suffers from internal barriers of every kind. There are barriers—irremovable, of course—of language. There are barriers imposed by the existence of different currencies with fluctuating rates of exchange (reduced in scale now for those who are members of the EMS) and by the payment of monetary compensatory amounts. There are barriers to the practice of services such as—as my noble friend Lord Eden of Winton said—banking and insurance, which are of such great importance to this country. There are barriers to investment.
There are frontier barriers. A director of a large and well known Dutch transport company, Van Gend en Loos, talking earlier this year to a meeting organised by that most enterprising informal group in the European Parliament known as the Kangaroo Group, described how a lorry making a round trip from Rotterdam to a North Italian town would normally be expected to take about 60 hours, of which no fewer than 12 would be spent at one frontier or another.
The speaker described these stops as being the most demoralising experience which a driver can have, and

75
one which incidentally encourages tampering with the tachograph—the instrument which records details of the journey. I am sure it is demoralising for the driver. But think also what a cost this implies for industry and so for the consumer, and what a restraint on the free operations of the market! Earlier this week Christopher Tugendhat estimated that the cost represents about 5 to 10 per cent. of the pre-tax value of traded goods. The director of the Dutch company reckoned that these stops could be reduced from 12 hours to 2 hours.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, certainly appears to feel the need to make progress in this field. Writing in the October edition of Europe 1984, he says:
"We waste untold resources owing to the fragmentation of our market, which results from the maintenance of barriers to trade and investment between Member-States. Frontier delays alone are estimated to cost £7b. a year to the Community's taxpayers".
Since tax checks constitute the major impediment at frontiers, the Government should continue to press either for the adoption of the 14th Directive on VAT or for some other similar system which avoids delays caused at the frontier by the need to collect the tax. The Council should follow the Commission proposal to replace over 70 documents relating to crossing frontiers with a single Community document. The practice of gauging the contents of fuel tanks is also ridiculous; the duty-free allowance should be higher than the capacity of standard fuel tanks, not lower.
A large amount of harmonisation of legislation has been necessary and will continue to be necessary; but perhaps the time has come to put more emphasis on the need for a recognition of each other's standards. In many instances what is good enough for the consumers in one of our member states should be good enough for the consumers in another. As the Commission says in its communication to the Council of 13th June this year:
"Mutual recognition of regulations and inspections and various forms of administrative co-operation could reduce the need to harmonise legislation".
I believe that the Commission is right when it says that we now need a decisive break-through; that:
"instead of selective measures spread over years, what is now important is to gather our forces for a comprehensive effort that will bring a quantum leap like the establishment of the Customs Union in the 1960s.".
A great deal of the goundwork has been done; many proposals are on the table. Procedures have even been improved. There is now a special council concerned with the internal market, which enables packages of decisions to be taken together, and the longer term goal always to be kept in mind. No new policies and, most attractive of all, no new resources are needed. On the contrary, the aim is to release resources by removing constraints.
Increasingly, sectors of our industry—and not only our industry—are realising that national markets are too small. This is perhaps particularly true in the field of high technology where many new products have no viability if the limit to their sales is determined by the size of the home market. But as the resolution adopted at the CBI conference earlier this week demonstrates, there is a general urge throughout British industry to be able to operate freely across national frontiers in Europe. At a time when people in Europe should
76
increasingly be concerned about the greater success of the United States and Japan, their higher growth rates, their stronger currencies, their lower unemployment, and the threat that they will out-distance us in the development and application of new technologies, surely it must be right to devote greater political drive and conviction to the task of freeing Europe's market from the multitude of restrictions that hamper its development and thereby impede the growth and competitiveness of British industry.
However, perhaps we ought to ask ourselves whether there is not something wrong with Europe's decision-taking procedures if so many of these proposals have lain for so long on the table, have been so generaly regarded as being desirable and yet have still not been put into effect. Is it not perhaps possible that the whole system of decision-taking has become immobilised under the weight of national safeguards and, on top of that, under the increasing consultation requirements that a democratically-elected European Parliament is able to exact both from the Commission and the Council?
But if that is the case, should we not seriously examine recent proposals for a new European treaty, rather than label them as "federalism", as implying "union", and so dismiss them? We claim that we are pragmatic, but pragmatism requires an open mind. It is dogmatism, not pragmatism, to reject a proposal without examining it to see whether it has any merits, particularly when there is a prima facia case for supposing that new action in the field concerned may be required.
I would therefore humbly suggest that the Select Committee on the European Communities of this House should give thought to the question whether it might not examine the Spinelli proposals for a new draft treaty. I am sure that parts will be unworkable, but parts might be an improvement on the present state of affairs. It is at least plain that the Community's decision-taking processes are slow, secret, cumbersome and frequently, after immense effort, produce absolutely no result at all. In such circumstances the onus of proof surely lies, not with those who propose changes, but with those who believe that things can go on as they are.
After all, if it is true that membership of the Community is of general benefit to all its members and to the Western Alliance as a whole—and the Government tirelessly repeats that that is the case—then it is inconsistent not to face squarely and energetically the problems involved in developing the Community further. For if Europe does not make progress, if its members lose heart, if they cease to believe in Europe's possibilities for co-operation, then that would be the beginning of the end for Europe—not just for Europe as a collective grouping, but for the individual states of Europe. For a Europe that degenerated into a squabbling group of nation states, obsessed by its own quarrels, would be the despair of its friends and would probably be deserted by its friends, even by the United States, and would be the delight, and ultimately the prey, of its enemies.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, so long as the unit of Government in this country is that of a nation state,

77
foreign policy has a primary objective of safeguarding the interests of the citizens. Some of us consider that the nation state is an anachronism; nevertheless, we are dealing with foreign policy as it is today. The crux of a debate on foreign policy is surely the definition of what is in the interests of the citizens of this country. We are no longer a great power. We no longer impose our will by gunboat diplomacy. Nevertheless, it sometimes seems as though we are not aware of the degree of influence which at least potentialy is still ours in many parts of the world through the United Nations, through our membership of the European Community, and I believe above all through our membership of the Commonwealth.
However, those of us who travel around the world are constantly distressed by the declining influence of Britain in events which are taking place in other parts of the world but which vitally affect both Britain today and British society, which we are leaving to our children. In many cases we find that countries like Holland and Scandinavia are now regarded with greater confidence than our own country. We have to ask ourselves why this is so?
It is most unfortunate that this debate on the gracious Speech has been preceded already by suggestions of cuts in our Foreign Office. Today Britain has 67 consulates in the world; in 1965 we had 128. We are told that the cuts may affect the BBC external services, the British Council and our membership of international agencies. Also, we have not yet heard whether those cuts are going to involve still further reductions in overseas aid. I suggest that in all these cases we are cutting our influence in the world and. through the cut in our influence, reducing the defence of the interests of the British people, which is the first priority of any British Government.
In that priority surely the first interest is that of security. Is it not the case that the security of the British people depends essentially upon the preservation of peace? I would suggest that in looking at the manner in which the Foreign Office and the Government as a whole are defending peace that we can divide that as follows. On the one hand, the political and diplomatic activity; on the other hand, the military activity. I would also add, thirdly, development, to which I shall come later. I do not intend to deal with the military side of the preservation of peace, which I am sure will be dealt with by other speakers and which I might add, in parenthesis, I wish had been separated into two debates, one on foreign policy and one on defence.
On the political side, is it not the case that if we examine the foreign policy of this Government we are appalled at the cynical and timid lack of principle which inspires our Government in their actions? It reminds me of the words of Edmund Burke:
"The convenience of the business of the day is to furnish the principle for doing it".
Where do we find principles in the activation of foreign policy so far as this Government are concerned? Why was it that the Government sent observers to the Salvadorean elections but not to Nicaragua? In the speech from the noble Baroness why did they ignore the whole issue of Grenada and its relation to our comunications, our relationship and our friendship with the United States?
78
My noble friend Lord Caradon has vividly analysed the weakness of the Government—the virtual abdication of this Government—in face of their responsibilities in promoting the independence of Namibia. But what action did the Government take when the South Africans invaded Angola? Was this not a great contrast to the actions and attitude taken by the Government to other invasions in the world? And yet we have a special responsibility in South Africa because the power which is now there was originally power which was handed over by British governments. The craven attitude that the government took to the anti-apartheid refugees who took asylum in the consulate in Durban is an apt commentary on their double standards regarding their whole attitude towards apartheid in that country.
Take the Philippines. What are we doing in the Philippines? Are we not supporting the military, oppressive, dictatorial rule of President Marcos? Are the Government not even trying to persuade the Commonwealth Development Corporation to provide funds for a plantation scheme which will be imposed by the military against the wishes of the peasants there, and which will involve the forcing of those peasants against their will into the new scheme? Why are we providing money out of our overseas aid fund—our pitiful overseas aid fund—to a country like Turkey? Is that one of our democratic friends? It would seem too often as though the foreign policy of this country resembles the monkey dancing to the tune played by organ grinder President Reagan.
I now come to the issue which for two years has constantly stood between myself and the Front Bench opposite: the question of the "Belgrano". There will be other opportunities to go into the details of this matter, but whatever it may seem to us there is no question whatever that in other parts of the world the issue of the "Belgrano" is seen as another facet of the old concept of perfidious Albion.
The Earl of Onslow: Nonsense!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I am perfectly prepared to give way if any noble Lord wants to interrupt me.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am very happy to do so. I have just returned from the Falkland Islands. There is not the slightest shadow of doubt that the sinking of the "Belgrano" was operationally necessary, and it saved several hundreds if not thousands of British lives. That is why it was done. The arguments afterwards about what course it was on seem to me to be totally immaterial. The noble Lord opposite seems totally impervious to the effect that it had on British lives. That was the important thing, and no other issue mattered.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I would simply suggest to the noble Earl that he looks at the casualty list for HMS "Sheffield", which was sunk two days later than the "Belgrano" and in retaliation for that attack. We know that it has taken some two years to smoke out a whole series of misleading statements made by Members of the Government, and particularly by the Prime Minister. When these misleading statements have been revealed, and admitted now, it is

79
clear that both Parliament and the public have been misled, and if not misled deliberately then through a lack of information which ought to have been obtained.
The whole incident has been described in the words of Walter Scott:
"O, what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!"
It is now revealed in a Question asked in another place just last week that the Prime Minister did not know for 22 months, until March of this year, that what she had been stating regarding the course that the "Belgrano" had been taking over the 11 hours before she was sunk was incorrect. However, she stated it to the House, and she stated it on television in public. This is yet another instance of expediency replacing morality.
I believe—and I think that many Members of this House would agree with me—that development throughout the world is an essential part of the security and of the interests of the people of this country. The right reverend prelate the Bishop of Rochester in a most moving speech this afternoon spoke of the global scandal of poverty. How have the present Government met this challenge? We know in bald figures that the amount of overseas aid has been reduced during their term of office from over 0·5 per cent. of our GDP to something under 0·3 per cent.; a matter which was the subject of criticism by our allies in the developed world in OECD only about 10 days ago. Can the noble Lord who is to wind up tell us specifically whether the cuts that have apparently been agreed in the Foreign Office budget are to include still further cuts in our overseas aid budget; an overseas aid budget which, we were told in another place only last week, is to be depleted by the amount that we are paying for the imediate famine in Ethiopia?
In one way I agree more with, or I am more sympathetic to the philosophy of, the Government than many of my noble friend on this side of the House in that when the Government have said that their overseas aid budget will be governed by political, industrial and commercial considerations plus helping the poorest people in the poorest countries, I am inclined to agree with them, on condition that that principle is put into practice in an equitable manner. I do not disagree with the aid and trade provisions, provided that they are not simply used to further the private interests of companies in this country. I would point out that there is one current contract which is certainly dubious—that for the provision of Westland helicopters to India—which I understand many officials of the Overseas Development Administration were strongly opposed to. There are certainly dangers that, following this policy, the Government tailor their policy to favour those voices which are closest to Government ears.
Even on these grounds the Government are showing themselves to be very inept and ineffective in carrying out their policies. I pointed out only about 10 days ago, when British Aerospace had the opportunity of a tender for the replacement of civil aircraft in Zimbabwe, that because the Overseas Development Agency and the Department of Trade and Industry refused to put in money to match that of the Dutch
80
Government, the contract is almost certainly lost to the Dutch firm Fokker. In this case, in civil terms this is not the use of the trade and aid provisions in a constructive way which will assist both employment and production in this country and attack poverty overseas.
Finally, I come to the issue of Ethiopia, very cogently and movingly referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester. The central theme of the Bishop's speech was that it is not enough simply to respond to a crisis when it has occurred. It is our task and the task of the Govenment to take precautions before such a crisis arises in order to avoid that crisis. Those of us in the field of overseas aid know that the Government have been warned and warned again, over at least the past two years, of the impending disaster not just in Ethiopia but in many other parts of Africa, and told that international aid must be mobilised before famine struck the people of these countries.
I quote from the Reverend Dr. Charles Elliott, the former director of Christian Aid, whom many noble Lords will know as a distinguished academic and a respected churchman. He accused the Government of using the starvation danger in Ethiopia for political means. He was speaking of the British and American Governments, and he said:
"Their long hostility to the régime caused them to refuse to release adequate funds or food. They thought that if there was a major catastrophe it would probably change the régime again"—
as it had done under Haile Selassie. I consider that to be a most grave charge against the foreign policy of this Government.
The Overseas Development Administration was asked for its comments. This was the comment of its spokesman:
"The Government has been quite open in making it clear that political factors are one of the considerations that it takes into account alongside development factors in its regular aid programme.".
This smacks very closely of the use of starvation as a political weapon. I suggest that this is no way to further the interests of the British people now living in what is a global village. In fact it has been best summed up in Shakespearean language:
"Th' expense of spirit, in a waste of shame".
6.47 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, although I may perhaps be out of order, I should like to extend warm congratulations to the two maiden speakers, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Moran (who I am afraid is not here at present), and to say how splendid it is to welcome an ex-diplomat as a colleague to your Lordships' House.
I should like to deal this evening with two areas which, though geographically and ethnically separate, have much in common: Uganda and the heart of the Middle East—Lebanon and Israel. Both these areas were formerly areas where British influence was predominant—Uganda in the days of the Protectorate and Israel in the days of the Palestinian Mandate. Both are now going through dark and difficult days, and both look upon Her Majesty's Government, among others, to help them emerge from darkness into light. Furthermore, both are bedevilled by tribalism and

81
factionism, and from this stems much of their ills. Finally, and most important of all, both areas are mentioned in the gracious Speech—the Middle East directly and Uganda by implication in the context of the Commonwealth and our overseas aid programme.
I start with Uganda. As I see it, there are two black spots in Africa today. One is Ethiopia, about which we all know a great deal, and the other is Uganda, about which very little is known, partly because this area is largely closed to foreign visitors, even to diplomats. Her Majesty's Government have never made a statement on it, and indeed the problems of Uganda have never been adequately discussed either in your Lordships' House or in another place.
Let me mention my own involvement. I served there from 1969 to 1971, and I have kept in touch with its problems ever since. I can say without any fear of contradiction that some of the finest Christians I have met in the world have been Ugandans, and many of these, sadly, are now dead as a result of army killings. Therefore, while I cannot claim to be wholly objective, I hope very much that your Lordships will not accuse me of exaggeration or distortion, because that would be an unpardonable crime to commit in a speech of this kind.
The tragedy in Uganda is surely all the greater in view of its former glory. As some of your Lordships know, British expertise and dedication, coupled with Ugandan skills, raised this country in the days of the Protectorate and indeed in the early days of independence to a level which was probably unparalleled in Africa, and the great institutions like Makerere University and Mulago Hospital set a standard of excellence which I do not think has ever been reached anywhere else in Africa.
Now, sadly, much of the country is in the grip of terror and despair. One of the saddest things of all, which a Ugandan friend of mine said to me the other day. is that Uganda is now a country without laughter. Those of your Lordships who know Africa as I do will know only too well that the element of laughter is inseparable from Ugandan society. It bubbles up, effervescent, in the most appalling circumstances.
Your Lordships will remember that this topic was raised when I asked a Starred Question on 16th October. Perhaps I may say here, in apologising for the length of my first supplementary, that I can assure your Lordships on the Benches opposite that I have learned my lesson the hard way. On that occasion the noble Lord the Minister, replying to my Question, said at col. 876:
"across the country there has been some improvement in the human rights situation in recent years".
Of course, we all hope very much that he is right and I cannot say categorically that he is wrong; but I have over the past few months consulted very many sources and the conclusions I have reached point in a very different direction. These sources include Ugandans now in Britain and they include two former Presidents, many lawyers, doctors and others of great eminence, and of course refugees coming straight to Britain from Uganda. Then there are Britons who come to this country after service in Uganda. There is an independent paper called Munnansi. Strangely enough, it is still functioning and it provides some very remarkable
82
details about what is going on. Then there are reports of organisations like the Minority Rights Group and Amnesty International—excellent bodies which, as your Lordships know, are dedicated to an objective and balanced assessment of the situation, totally without bias.
Finally, there is of course the report of the official of the State Department, Mr. Abrams, which reached the British press in August. Your Lordships may remember that he alleged that there were the most appalling atrocities going on, including killings of up to 100,000. His conclusion was that these terrible killings and violations of human rights were increasing in severity rather than decreasing.
From a study of all this evidence, I have reached three broad conclusions. The first is that, although there may well be some upturn in the Ugandan economy—indeed many people coming from that country speak on those lines—the army nevertheless continues to commit the most appalling crimes, particularly widespread indiscriminate raping, looting, arson, abductions, forced starvation and attacks on defenceless civilians, even in hospitals and refugee camps, quite apart from torture of the most vile and abominable kind and imprisonment in army prisons in conditions of unspeakable filth and degradation.
The point I should like to make is that the information I have received about this is very recent indeed. It appears that the army is now embarking on widespread raping. I have heard of mothers being raped in front of their children and children being raped in front of their mothers: in some cases the raping of children is accompanied by vile mutilations. It seems that the victims of these army attacks are for the most part not guerrillas at all but innocent civilians, although it is true that some may perhaps have harboured guerrillas in the past.
My second conclusion—again contrary to what appears to be the view of Her Majesty's Government—is that the Ugandan President is unwilling rather than unable to bring the army to heel. My third conclusion concerns the British military training team. The noble Lord the Minister has said that this team has brought about some improvement in the human rights situation. I have no doubt at all that our British military training team has instilled in the Ugandan army the best traditions of British military discipline, but that is quite a different matter from stopping them from committing these appalling atrocities.
I realise only too well the difficult position that Her Majesty's Government are in. Uganda is a sovereign state and we cannot interfere in its internal affairs, but I would put to your Lordships three suggestions. The first is that Her Majesty's Government should face facts fairly and squarely: in other words remove the telescope from their blind eye. Secondly, we should protest in the strongest possible terms to Uganda. The noble Lord the Minister on 16th October expressed our concern. But is not concern totally inadequate? Should there not be outright condemnation on the lines taken by the Americans? And, if our own protests are unavailing, as they appear to be, could we not enlist the support of the Americans, the EEC and the United Nations?

83
Next, I would suggest that we must give absolute priority to the restoration of security throughout the country. Of course Her Majesty's Government have a substantial aid programme, as the Minister told us, of £7 million. I know from my own experience how valuable such aid programmes can be, but when perhaps more than half of a country seems to be in a state of destitution, as in the area north of Kampala, for example—and I have seen photographs, which I think are entirely genuine, of village after village which has been deserted—surely security must be re established.
Finally, may I draw the Minister's attention to a letter of protest which was signed on 20th October and delivered to No. 10 Downing Street by a number of very senior Ugandans? It was excellently drafted, I think, although of course I cannot associate myself with every word of it. Its main recommendation was that Her Majesty's Government should see their way to persuading President Obote to call an overall tribal conference representing all the elements in the country. At any rate, I hope very much that this document will not find its way into one of those dusty Whitehall cabinets which I remember so well from my diplomatic days.
So much for Uganda. Let me now deal as briefly as I can with one or two salient aspects of the Middle East, which is in fact my real stamping-ground. We last discussed this matter on 22nd June on an Unstarred Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, said that the turmoil in the Middle East was "hydra-headed" and "polycentric". I would add yet another description: "multi-factional". Hydra-headed?—look at the PLO. Look at all the different branches. There were six or eight when last I checked up: there may be five now. As one head is lopped off, another springs up. Multi-factional?—look at Israel, with its 15 political parties. Look at Lebanon, with something like 12 or 13 ethnic and political groups.
Let me turn first to Lebanon. It seems to me that the country is like an exhausted swimmer trying desperately to reach the shore but constantly being beaten back by waves. The shore, of course, represents peace and security. Has not that been happening? We keep on feeling that peace is near; yet there are fresh outbreaks of violence. For example, there was the recent Druze attack on the South Lebanon army, and so on. Indeed, when one thinks that there have been something like 154 short-lived cease-fires since the present troubles started in 1975, one realises how menacing are those waves, how distant that longed-for shore.
There are two stabilising elements in the situation. One is that President Gemayel is trying to bring the Maronite militia to heel. He is forcing them to close their port of Jounie, from which they receive most of their supplies. The second is that the Shia themselves, who represent the largest religious group in Lebanon—over 1 million of them—seem to be a generally stabilising influence, and their leader, Nabih Berri, has established quite a useful dialogue with the Maronites. As for the occupying forces, the Syrians, it seems, are set to stay, and the Lebanese are adjusting themselves to that. The Israelis we hope and expect to
84
withdraw, and this is greatly to be desired by the Israelis themselves, in view of the fact that they have suffered something like 600 casualties since their occupation started.
Finally, and I hope briefly, I must turn to Israel. Having criticised Her Majesty's Government for their policy over Uganda, may I give the warmest possible welcome to the speech made by the Secretary of State in Israel not long ago, urging the Israeli Government to abandon their policy of settlements in the West Bank. I can assure your Lordships that these settlements are crushing the Arab population, stifling them of their land and depriving them of their water. There are, in fact, about 200 settlements now, containing something like 23,000 Israelis. Whereas formerly these settlements were built on barren land—and, indeed, they are still now being built on barren land—some are apparently being set up in name only. In other words, it appears that they are designed to separate and contain the Arabs.
It is very significant that no Arab may dig a well without a permit, and if he gets a permit his well is limited to 30 feet. On the other hand, the Israelis in their settlements may dig as many wells as they like and tap all the best water. That is not the end of the story, because 30 new settlements have been approved, and those will perhaps be built in the next two years. After two years, as your Lorships probably know, Shimon Peres, the present Prime Minister, who is undoubtedly dovelike and wants to achieve some sort of reconciliation with the Arabs, will be succeeded by Shamir, who is undoubtedly a hawk; and Ariel Sharon, who is also in the Government, is even more hawklike.
May I conclude by referring your Lordships to a play by Dodie Smith, written, I think, 20 or 30 years ago, called Dear Octopus? Her concept of the octopus was an animal whose tentacles stretched out to embrace the different members of the family, and I have seen in the Arab world (as I expect your Lordships have seen elsewhere) many of these octopuses, or I should perhaps say octopodes. That is still possible. The octopus must be a benign, warmly embracing creature. It must not be a stifling creature, as happens at the moment. There are signs that both the Israelis and the Arabs are working in that direction, and that the octopus may change its character. I know that Her Majesty's Government will welcome this development and do all they can to further it.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, one of the advantages of the debate on the gracious Speech is that one can refer both to things which are in the Speech and, if one prefers it, to things which have been omitted, and that gives the House a latitude which it does not always enjoy. I wish to start by referring to something which I regret was not in the Speech, and that is the failure to make an unambiguous declaration that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to give notice of their withdrawal from UNESCO. The case for this was made very eloquently, as many noble Lords may remember, by the late Lord Vaizey, and we must all mourn his untimely passing during the Recess. If he

85
had been here to put the case, I think I would have found some other issue.
However, the reason for wishing that Her Majesty's Government would follow the American example, and set an example to other European countries, is not so much the corruption which is now proved beyond peradventure to surround the whole of this institution, and one about which only cosmetic changes have been proposed. It is not even the fact that it flies in the face of all the principles of international organisation, which should be concerned primarily with activity in the appropriate field, but which in this case spends more than four-fifths of its budget and retains more than four-fifths of its personnel in Paris. It is not, as I say, primarily even for these reasons, though they might well give government cause to think; nor is it the element of expenditure involved, though one could add that £5 million, which is roughly the cost of membership to the United Kingdom, could be very well spent in direct assistance to developing countries in the fields in which UNESCO, in its origin, was intended to work, and particularly in the field of education.
For instance, many of us on all sides of the House have deplored the effect of changes in the level of student fees upon our reception of Commonwealth students. The sum of £5 million devoted to bringing students from the developing countries of the Commonwealth would be better than £5 million spent on the salaries of people in Paris who, if they come from the developing countries, ought surely to spend their talents and education, which are in short supply in their countries, in their own countries rather than in the fleshpots of Western Europe.
I think the real reason is that we have to show in dealing with international institutions that we are serious about them; that if they are fulfilling their basic functions—and all of them have their weaknesses—then it is clearly, as has been said in the gracious Speech, the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support them. But when one has an institution originally set up to assist cultural communication between different countries, for which by now many other and more efficient channels exist, and to contribute to the furtherance of literacy, education and knowledge, and when one finds that it spends its time on programmes which have nothing to do with these original purposes—either the propagation of the so-called new information order, which is to confirm the kind of censorship on the press which makes it so difficult to find the truth about, for instance, the situation in Uganda, to which the noble Viscount referred; or the so-called peace initiatives, which turn out to be merely vehicles by which the views of the Eastern bloc get further resonance—it seems that we are not being serious in our attitude towards the rest of the world, in particular the developing countries, if we say, "It can't be helped; it's only £5 million; it's awkward to draw out; some people may misinterpret this". That is not good enough. I would urge my noble friends on the Front Bench to convey to their colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in particular to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, both of these views and the arguments which were stressed a few days ago—I am sorry he is
86
not in his place today—by my noble friend Lord Blake in a letter to The Times.
I turn to the wider issue which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, in his very interesting speech; namely our general responsibility towards development—because UNESCO is a failed example of assistance towards development. Our failures, as many noble Lords have reminded us, are much more long-term, much more eventually deleterious, than even the current famine to which our attention has been called so powerfully. However, I find myself in disagreement, not for the first time, with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, and also, regretfully, with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland.
My disagreement arises from the view which was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, that if one says that there is a political aspect to assistance towards development it means that one proposes to use starvation as a weapon against existing governments. Such an accusation is outrageous and is also wholly misconceived. There is, nevertheless, a political element. One of the problems of development, of these countries being able to supply their own resources, is precisely the lack of political stability in countries such as Uganda or Ethiopia, the latter with its two, three or four civil wars in progress. Furthermore, many of the decisions which have been taken have been political decisions by newly independent or only recently independent governments.
I disagree with the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that in some way the West, or the aid-giving countries which are in the West, because the Soviet Union gives little except expendable bullets, has forced upon the developing world projects which are too large or too sophisticated for its own good. But it is not the West which has insisted upon these massive projects—upon building airports or creating new national airlines. It is the governments of those countries which have given priority to these requests, as against the patient and determined kind of reform, at a fairly basic level, of their agricultural systems which, where it has been tried, has proved to be remarkably successful.
If one considers, as we have been reminded by recent tragic events, the contrast between India's success in meeting the pressure of population upon food and the failures in African countries, despite the fact that there were, and must always be, climatic and other difficulties, one sees that politics cannot be avoided. The problems of Ethiopia are not only due to lack of rain; they have also been created by a government which for 10 years has neglected the real needs of the country, which has been involved in measures of oppression against its minorities and which has given priority to junketings of various kinds instead of to famine relief. Although there are few countries in Africa or, thank God!, in any part of the world which can be compared with Ethiopia, there are sufficient incompetent governments to make the problems with which we are dealing not problems wholly of nature's cruelty—although nature is cruel—and not problems of lack of technology, because the technology is there and in countries like India is being successfully used, but problems created

87
because of the lack of administrative skills and political common sense.
The reason I attach the importance that I do to the use of UNESCO's £5 million or of other money which can be made available for the provision of further and higher education, particularly in technical, administrative and entrepreneurial skills, is because it is the only way to prevent the kind of appeals which are now being made to us. We know, for reasons which other noble Lords have given, that they will not suffice to save the lives which have been put at risk. It is right to say that we need new thinking, but that new thinking must encompass administration and economic policy and must link closely with our own ideas about the right way forward.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I am tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, to UNESCO. There has been no stronger critic of the New World Information Order than myself. I have suffered on several UNESCO committees when trying to knock some sense into some pretty dense heads. Nevertheless, I cannot go along with the noble Lord in his desire for us to withdraw from UNESCO, simply because it would cause so much dismay to so many Commonwealth governments and Commonwealth citizens who, in my experience, have a certain kind of esteem for the organisation. It would be wrong to leave them exposed to the Eastern Communist nations. However, I shall not go down that path. Instead, I wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Reay, with whose speech I almost completely agreed, down the path into Europe.
A few days ago I tried to bring a set of questions on our European connection to a more cheerful conclusion by suggesting that we were at the stage where life could begin again at Brussels: life with all its difficulties, including, I implied, the common agricultural policy. My contribution was not very clear and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was somewhat mystified. However, we had already spent so much time on the question that I let it go. I shall try to explain now. I cannot do better than to use the words of the most gracious Speech:
"Following the agreement at Fontainebleau on the fairer sharing of the community's budget burden and on the overall control of Community spending, my Government look forward to the further development of the European community."
Fontainebleau was the landmark which I had in mind. What the Government have in mind is indicated in the following words:
"They will continue to press for improvements in the Common Agricultural Policy and for completion of the common market in goods and services. They will work for the early conclusion of the negotiations to enable Spain and Portugal to join the Community, and to conclude a new agreement to succeed the Lome Convention".
The noble Baroness who opened the debate expanded a little on those words. All that is admirable and a very tall order, yet I am still disappointed.
I had hoped for something more specific, some distinctive British contribution to the development of the Community after the negative years of self-protection, necessary and justified though that self-protection was. I had hoped that the state visit of
88
President Mitterrand might have presented an opportunity or at least created a mood in Britain in which an initiative might be launched. But the mood was not created. Great efforts were made with the meeting in the Royal Gallery. An audience of both Houses was collected. Speeches were made by Speakers of both Houses in their robes. There were banks of flowers, and the learned clerks—dressed as if for a wedding—ushered people to their seats. And then, somebody failed to provide either a written or an oral translation of the French President's speech—or even a copy of his words in French. The acoustics in the Royal Gallery are impossible and the amplification was of poor quality. Even some of those of us who delude ourselves that we understand spoken French lost a large part of the speech. The only mood created was one of bewilderment and regret.
I am not seeking to find out where the blame lies—I do not want to know. I simply want to put the facts on record so that never again when we have an eminent guest, accompanied by all the Queen's horses and all the Queen's men, will we fail to receive his communication. It may be true that the difficulties we experienced were shared by the press—because nowhere did I see an adequate account of M. Mitterrand's address. There were descriptive sketches but nowhere were his words given a run—if I may use a newspaper term. Afterwards came the ludicrous incident of the sniffer dogs and the small packet of explosives found in the garden of the French Embassy. That was news—and I fear that is all that most of Britain will remember about the French President's visit.
Sometimes I think that there is a poltergeist—some mischievous or perhaps even malicious sprite—that delights in upsetting Franco-British relations. Yet we cannot have good relations in the Community unless we have good relations with France. The heart of the Community is the Franco-German accord, and unless we too join hands with France and Germany, and unless we show some enthusiasm for the European idea, the day will surely come when we have a two-tier community with Britain in the second tier of progress and the second tier of influence.
The president, in spite of all his domestic problems, is I believe the leader of the Community today. I thought that he was holding out a most friendly hand to us. He recalled how the Community had created a free market, a common agricultural policy, a common external tariff, and the beginning of an industrial policy. None of these, he said, had been accomplished without a crisis; crises of legitimacy and of sovereignty, and institutional and financial crises. But now, said the president, the time had come to make Europe a genuine political reality, capable of asserting itself on the international scene.
The president then referred to European union—a word greatly feared in Britain because sometimes it is associated with federalism; with the abandonment of all-important national sovereignty. In Europe, in my experience, union means what you want it to mean—provided you mean some virtuous and co operative arrangement. The president maintains that union already has a concrete existence, and he believes that it would be good pragmatically to confirm its international existence:

89
"in a context of respect for the identity of each of the member states".
I should like to repeat that because I think it pushes the federalist idea away somewhat:
"in a context of respect for the identity of each of the member states".
What the president wants to do is improve (as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, suggested might be necessary) the Community's decision-making capability, to increase the responsibilities of its institutions, and to open new fields of co-operation—and so become a genuine political reality capable of asserting itself on the international scene.
The Western European Union is outside the institutions of the EEC. Nevertheless, its revival—sponsored by M. Mitterrand and others—is consistent with what the president has in mind. One of the immediate concrete goals is to repair Europe's losses to America and Japan of its high technology markets; losses incurred even though Europe is investing more than those two countries do in research. The reason M. Mitterrand finds for that is, insufficient co-operation among European firms—although the co-operation which does exist is already proving itself in the field of aviation and promises to develop in telecommunications. It has need to do so; there are no fewer than nine switchgear systems in telecommunications in Western Europe.
The French have long been perceptive of the threat to our high technology. Six year ago, M. Ortoli—one of the French nominees on the Commission and a most distinguished one—was warning of the problems we would all have in the great new electronic industries unless we got rid of internal barriers and adopted more co-operative arrangements. Surely the way is now open to create an industrial community in which nobody would gain more than Britain.
The European gesture I was hoping for was a signal that the time was approaching when we should become full members of the European Monetary System by joining the exchange rate mechanism—the ERM. It is now 15 months since a Select Committee of this House presented its report on the subject after seven months of intensive inquiry under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury. The committee based itself on the fact that the Government have always said that they would join the ERM when the time was right—so those of us who served on that committee assumed that the Government have no fundamental and valid objection to joining the ERM.
The committee came to the conclusion that further delay in taking this step was no longer justified—although their report did not venture to suggest any precise timetable, as other aspects of policy and EEC negotiations were relevant.
It is almost 12 months since we debated the report. That debate was wound up by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. He thought that the committee had assumed too readily that the difficulties to which the special characteristics of sterling give rise had eased sufficiently. Those difficulties were that the value of sterling may rise and fall with the price of oil; that—like the Deutschmark—sterling is widely used in international finance and so is especially vulnerable to
90
large movements of the dollar; and this always leads to strain among the members of the ERM. So it does; but its members would rather suffer those strains in the mutually-protective environment of the ERM than alone in a cold and cruel world.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, confirmed that the Government believed that membership should be achieved in the right circumstances and when the time is right. What on earth was he really talking about? In one breath he was saying that the difficulties were more or less permanent—at least until some time in the 21st century when the oil runs out and also the day when sterling has made its final exit from international finance. In the next breath, he went on to talk about the right time. I wonder whether the Government will tell us what they regard as being the right time. If they cannot do so in this debate today, then perhaps they can do so in one of our subsequent debates, because this subject falls within the scope of domestic policy too.
The question was asked again in this House a few days ago and an even less logical answer was given by the new Treasury spokesman, the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. The noble Earl is a Minister with the clearest of minds and the clearest of prose. The fact that he talked non-sense—I use the word non-sense in its philosophic context and not in its pejorative context—can be attributed only to the ambivalence of Government policy. Is the truth, I wonder, that the FO wants us in and the Treasury keeps us out? Is that the answer? There are, of course, practical reasons for our being in the ERM—for the benefit of our traders; for its being a base from which to advance to the idea of a financial community, about which the noble Lord, Lord Reay, has spoken; perhaps for the opportunity of developing a common policy towards the dollar and the linked problem of interest rates; and perhaps for the whole EMS, solidly founded, to become a possible precursor of a world monetary system.
We are not only at a new stage in Europe, we are at a new stage in world affairs with the re-election of President Reagan. The sterility, or ambiguity, of policy in the pre-election year is all over and now we ask: what will the President become? What will he do about his deficit? What will be the effect on his booming America, so promising to world exporters? What will be the effect on interest rates and the dollar? These are riddles. He said today that we are at the beginning of everything, but he did not explain what the everything is. One thing we do know is that the more solidly-based Europe that President Mitterand calls for will be a better ally in a stronger position to survive or profit by the repercussions of any important changes in American economic and financial policy and a stronger counsellor on what may be the most vital subject of them all—the subject of arms control.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, 1984 has been a remarkable year for Anglo-Irish relations. As I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, mentioned, we had Mr. Haagerup's report on Northern Ireland to the European Parliament. Since then there has been the Forum which brought together the four constitutional Irish nationalist parties. We have had discussion papers from all the Unionist parties and from the

91
Alliance Party in Northern Ireland. Last month a pamphlet was published entitled Northern Ireland—Untying the Knot. This came from the non-sectarian "Northern Consensus Group". It consists of business and professional people. All I shall say about the pamphlet is that it is well worth studying. Last week we had a considered response to the Forum from the independent inquiry chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, in which two other Members of your Lordships' House played a distinguished part. I am sure that the House will be grateful for the thought and effort that went into these documents. Indeed, if words could produce solutions, we would be home and dry by now.
I feel that what we now need is trust, as has been mentioned in previous speeches, and appropriate action. It is therefore fitting that the Prime Ministers of Britain and Ireland will be meeting in Dublin at the end of this month. It is obvious that security will take up a considerable part of their discussions, but I hope and pray that their agenda will not be limited to security matters.
I should like to see it stated that consent does not now exist for changes in sovereignty over Northern Ireland. The most recent elections there have made it utterly clear that there is no such consent, which both Governments agree is necessary, and that consent is unlikely to arise in the immediately foreseeable future. Here it is worth recalling that as far back as 1967 an all-party committee set up by the then Prime Minister of Ireland, Mr. Lemass, recommended that Article 3 of the Republic's Constitution should be amended to read as follows:
"The Irish nation hereby proclaims its firm will that its national territory be re-united in harmony and brotherly affection between all Irishmen".
However, more is needed than just a negative statement that harmony and consent are not now available. I should like to see the two heads of Government discussing, first, friendship; secondly, citizenship; and, thirdly common services. These are large topics and I do not, of course, expect instant or complete agreement, but now is the time to start to work towards an early and comprehensive Anglo-Irish agreement. Perhaps I may be permitted to set out my hopes under each of the three heads just mentioned.
As regards friendship, Britain and Ireland are neighbours, with language, literature and many traditions in common. Our histories are intertwined and our peoples are interdependent. I believe that there are living in Britain now about 1 million people who were born in Ireland. Several further millions have significant amounts of Irish ancestry. Links between Scotland and Ireland are strong and very ancient. Both islands share similar values. Let us therefore make a declaration of our friendship and take the necessary steps to give it the fullest possible expression. I suggest that we need local and voluntary initiatives; for example, the twinning of towns and organisations or exchanges between schools and universities.
The two Governments should be specifically involved over citizenship. Already we have a common travel area, we have reciprocal voting arrangements for British residents in Ireland and for Irish people
92
living in Britain. It is possible for residents of the North of Ireland to obtain passports of the Republic if they so wish. We also have reciprocal health and welfare arrangements.
I should like to recall the proposed Franco-British declaration of June 1940, one line of which read:
"Every citizen of France will enjoy immediately citizenship of Great Britain; every British subject will become a citizen of France".
Let us now build on this model and provide reciprocal citizenship between Britain and Ireland, with equivalent rights and duties, exercisable in both countries. The offer to France was made at a grim moment of war against the Nazi power. Today Britain and Ireland are both fighting terrorists, whose threats are as foul as those of 1940. Improvements in citizenship, building on what already exists, would show that we will not be terrorised, and would go far towards recognising the validity and the integrity of the two traditions in Northern Ireland.
I come now to common services. There is endless scope for co-ordination and promotion of tourism, industry and investment and the development of cross-Border co-operation in Ireland. Natural resources, transport and agriculture—one only has to think of the two seperate milk regimes of North and South—would all benefit from a common services organisation, which could in time be extended to cover the even wider concerns of the whole group of Anglo-Celtic islands.
We need friendship, common or dual citizenship and common services, but these things require some linkage. British and Irish civil servants have been meeting regularly over the years since the 1920s. Recently an Anglo-Irish inter-governmental council came into being at ministerial level. These meetings should, I believe, now be made complete by an inter-parliamentary council that would bring together this Parliament and the Parliament of the Republic in Dublin. Such a council could well operate in a similar way to a parliamentary Select Committee.
I realise that the noble Lord who will reply for the Government may not be able to anticipate the details of the summit meeting. Nevertheless, if he could say that the principal points that I have mentioned will be on its agenda, this would be most encouraging. I have suggested that we need a new and comprehensive agreement. I would suggest also that we need to face the past and to take responsibility for our history in a spirit of mutual forgiveness. In Northern Ireland the aim should be not just mutual respect between the two traditions, but, even more positively, parity of esteem and equality of status and opportunity for each, leading rather soon to the full involvement of both traditions in the processes of government. I trust that wisdom and success will attend the negotiators on all sides.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will understand if I do not follow him particularly in his very interesting submission. I should like straightaway to start by proffering my congratulations to both maiden speakers this afternoon on the quality, and indeed the delivery, of their speeches. I should also like to make my own personal comment on the sad

93
loss of Mrs. Indira Gandhi. I came to know her quite well, because I knew the Britisher who was her closest friend—Mr. Frank Harcourt-Munning, who was the founder of War on Want and who did so much for India immediately after her independence. He got to know Pandit Nehru and, of course, the young student in this country, Indira Gandhi. The world has lost a prominent statesman, India has lost a great leader and my country has lost a wonderful friend.
I want to make some comment, if I may, on the present inertia that the Government are showing over establishing sound and sensible relations with the Argentine. We cannot go on for ever talking about the "Belgrano", all that was lost, and so on and so forth. It is not a bit of good the Minister opposite pointing. This is going on because this Government are not capable of coming clean about anything. That is the truth of this situation. That is why we are not now making sensible overtures to a democratic government in the Argentine, many of whose members were appalled at the idea of the invasion. Many of the people who supported us then are now in government, and we are not doing much about encouraging them.
I am a very strong believer that commerce, trade and industry are great lubricants. They can help to bring both countries together. We have done that, have we not, with Germany? I cannot believe that on D-Day anyone would have believed that in two or three years' time the Germans would be trading with Britain. After the terrible happenings inflicted on the Americans by the Japanese, I do not think that they would have believed that in three or four years they would be trading with the Japanese, and so on and so forth. In so far as our trade with former enemies has been a good thing, our battle now is to produce better goods for the benefit of all mankind; so why on earth do we not get on with it and make sensible overtures to the Argentine Government?
I was also very pleased when the noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned the situation in Iran. I have made some study of this matter. I cannot go into it in detail. When I was recently at the United Nations I spoke to people who have been there and know precisely what is going on. It is terrible to learn what is going on. The mind can hardly take it in. As the noble Baroness said, hundreds—nay, thousands—of little children are being told by Iranian officers, who in turn have been told by the incredible man who is supposed to be their religious leader, that it is quite all right to run into anti-personnel minefields and be blown to bits. They are told that there is nothing to worry about because they will have the key of heaven in their hand—and my country cannot make up its mind whose side it is on! That is the most deplorable thing. It cannot make up its mind whether it is against a nation that indulges in such appalling behaviour. The noble Baroness mentioned the situation. I therefore fervently hope that the Government will take a new initiative in trying to stop the war.
I was very pleased, and indeed proud, when the noble Baroness mentioned the immediate aid that our country has given to relieve the dreadful situation in Ethiopia. We have all seen the pictures on our television screens. But, as we all know, it has been going on for centuries, year in and year out. It was Aneurin Bevan who, as in most things, seemed to have
94
the right answer, which he adumbrated in his brilliant book In Place of Fear. We all have something to be afraid of, whether it be cancer or that our loved one may be killed in an aircraft. We have all these terrible fears but we never seem to try to put something in place of that fear as Aneurin Bevan suggested.
I remember with regard to immigration that he was of the opinion that, if all the starving Indians and Africans somehow or other got here, the island would sink. That was not the way to do it at all, he felt. We should help them and allow them to develop. Our young people should go to Africa, India, Pakistan and other parts of the impoverished world to help them build up their nations. What was wanted were carpenters, joiners, electricians, quantity surveyors and others from our great professions in industry and medicine. We should send our young people to those countries rather than have those people come here. I believe that we have to do the same thing over Ethiopia. If we sent all the goods in the world, they would last for only a few years—perhaps half a decade—and it would all start happening again.
I am proud we sent the aid, but I hope that we shall go further and encourage other nations, through the United Nations and its agencies, to get the government and the people of Ethiopia to understand that the finest help they can have is for us to help to teach them so that they may have the ability to stand on their own feet and prevent such an appalling thing happening again.
I now turn briefly to the Middle East, which I consider to be the most frightfully dangerous flash point in the world. We have to find some way to stop what is happening there. It is no good us not having the courage to acknowledge that countries have been invaded. In 1939 we ourselves declared war on Nazi Germany not because of its horrendous behaviour towards Jewish folk but because it threatened to invade Poland, and we said, "You are not going to do this". It is to the credit of this nation that we did that. I do not for one moment say that we should invade Israel, but Israel invaded and is hanging onto lands that she conquered. We cannot on the one hand condemn the Russians for what they have done in other places—for example, in occupying Afghanistan—and say that it is quite all right for one of our allies to do the same. We cannot do that. There are tens of thousands of gallant Israelis who do not agree with the occupation of the settlements, who do not agree with one of their leading politicians who said just a few months ago that if there is any fresh move from the refugees of Palestine they will be all wiped out: men, women and children. That was heavily and marvellously condemned by the ordinary folk of Israel. It is these people to whom we should give our support.
I now turn briefly to the most terrible and greatest threat that mankind has ever faced in its history. That is the threat of nuclear war. Perhaps it behoves us now to look at this panic that we sometimes receive from the United States. There is a massive build-up of hatred, not so much against the Soviet communist system as against the great Russian people. One realises that we have been hard put to it by being attacked by the Spaniards. We all know that that upset Francis Drake when he was out playing bowls on

95
Plymouth Hoe. The Spanish wanted to conquer us. Then the Dutch wanted to conquer us. Then the Germans wanted to conquer us. The Russians have never behaved like that.
Those of us who landed on the beaches on D-Day and a few days before were very, very grateful that more than two-thirds of the massive Nazi Army, under Field-Marshal von Paulus, was being held down by the Russians. The great tributes which were paid at that time by our great Field-Marshal, Field-Marshal Montgomery, were generous, right and proper.
What then happened was a great shame and the fault lies overwhelmingly with the Russian Government of the day. It was this. The democracies were compelled to bring their soldiers, sailors and airmen home. The Americans and the British simply had to do that; the demand was enormous. When we did it, that meant that our forces were down to an absolute minimum, even before the defeat of Japan. However, there was no similar response from the Russian Government. It remained obdurate. It not only remained obdurate but it also constituted a real threat. The rulers and the people of Russia today must understand that. Therefore at the time I think it was very fortunate for my country and for the freedom of peace-loving democracies that we had a great foreign Secretary in the person of the former general secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union (my union at the time), Ernest Bevin, who created NATO and I believe gained the respect of the entire world.
We have to explain these matters to the Russians, that it was their misgivings and totally unnecessary behaviour immediately after the Second World War which has helped to create the situation in which we are at the moment. We want to acknowledge and say to them, "Of course we realise and appreciate that you lost 20 million people in the last World War. Together with our losses, isn't that reason enough for us to get together like civilised human beings, even at this late stage of 1984 and in the last half of this decade, to try to build a safer world?" Therefore we have to ask both the USA and the USSR to re-establish contact. They are the only two powers that really count. They have committed their offences—the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Grenada. The behaviour of the Americans in South America is deplorable, as the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, has said. One wonders whether this American election really counts. Is the president going to rule or are the CIA? These matters are very worrying.
Let me immediately say this in due credit to the Americans. I have just been there. I have seen on their television sets all these things that we complain of. I have seen television programmes criticising the CIA and showing pictures of what they are doing in South America. I have heard the commentators saying that this is being done in the name of America. So let us give the United States great credit that they are still a great democracy. Let them be complimented on that.
The terrible complement of nuclear arsenals on both sides simply means that we can destroy all humanity about 100 times over. I must ask the Government this tonight. Are they still of the opinion that in order to preserve our country we shall wipe out millions of Russians if they invade, and that we shall
96
wipe out millions of French, Germans and Dutch by using atomic weapons on the Russian armies? This is a very serious question that we have to have the courage to face up to. Frankly, it appears that this world has now reached the apotheosis of insanity. East and West are glaring at one another with mutual madness. I have tried to examine my soul deeply on this matter. I have considered the threat to my country—the threat to freedom—and I know all the arguments, that it is better to be red than dead, and so on and so forth. But the brutal truth is that we now have the capacity to wipe out all humanity a number of times over. Therefore we must really search for some formula to prevent that happening.
At the moment we in the West and they in the East are keeping a couple of Bengal man-eating tigers in place of a few watch dogs. That is the insanity that we have reached. If only we could find an answer to the problem that I have raised time and time again in this House: how can we really get a complete first-class system of verification? If I may say so, speaking parenthetically, I hope that the Government will give this some more thought. We all know that verification is vital but we have as yet had no propositions as to how it could be achieved, and we have not talked about it to the Russians. For example, will it mean that we will have technicians, military experts, technologists, and scientists from Russia in our country and in America on all the bases? Does it mean that we will have our people there seeing that any future agreements are carried out?
I hope that there is one little piece of idealism which this nation is good at introducing. I conclude with this idea. I should like the United Kingdom to declare a decade of friendship with all peoples so that we get people to talk and have Russians by their hundreds coming here, as the Americans already do. We should also visit their countries. Our youth should go to their countries. As well as visits by the Bolshoi Ballet and football teams, I should like to see such activities on a much more elaborate scale all around the world. I believe that if we can do this successfully we shall have made a great contribution to help mankind to ensure the support of civilised idealism. Unless we hang on to civilised idealism and get others to appreciate it, there will not be much hope in the world. But if there is one nation in the world that I believe can give a lead in that particular dimension then I think that it is the United Kingdom.
7.59 p.m.
The Marquess of Ailsa: My Lords, I feel that recent events in Ethiopia have served to concentrate our minds on the many problems of the Horn of Africa. I must at the outset congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the manner in which they have responded to Ethiopia's call for aid to deal with the tremendous probems it faced in dealing with the severe shortage of food in its Northern provinces. I equally know that the Ethiopeans and the Ethiopian Government are deeply appreciative of all that has been done, not only by Her Majesty's Government but by the people of this country, in order to assist them in this hour of need.
I am though, slightly mystified about one or two things. I first heard about the problems of Wollo and

97
Tigre 18 months ago. I heard again about them in April of this year. During all the inquiries that I made 18 months ago and in April I was warned that the rains had failed, that there was a shortage of food and that there was a transport problem.
When I went to Ethiopia in June of this year I did not go to those provinces, I went to provinces in the south. Strangely enough, wherever I went, I saw a great deal of food. I was taken to endless markets. There was a lot of food to be sold and there was plenty more in the stores. There was so much to be seen that I had to ask my host where the problem was. I was then told that there was a problem in the provinces of Tigre and Wollo. I mention this because I have an awful feeling that someone has been orchestrating something here. From such inquiries as I have been able to make, it has been the media. As the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has said, it has been going on for a long time. It has. But, somehow, it has been brought to our attention within the last fortnight. All that I would say is that I just wonder if those who did it knew what they were doing. The problem brought about by the drought and food shortage is not only an Ethiopian one; it affects directly many countries in Africa. Sudan, Somalia and Djibouti, which border and neighbour Ethiopia, are equally affected. Yet nothing is ever heard about them.
The other day my parish minister asked me whether it was true that a television camera team could go to any of those countries in Africa and find similar scenes. I have to answer, Yes. There is nothing more that I can say. The problems of the drought and the food shortage are severe and terrible. I just hope, however, that not too much aid has been pre-empted by Ethiopia. During my recent stay in Ethiopia I had the privilege and honour of meeting the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of the provisional military government of socialist Ethiopia, Colonel Goshu Wolde. I think that I am the first member of your Lordships' House to have done so.
We had a long and interesting discussion. Colonel Wolde stressed that Ethiopia felt that it was under pressure from the various states in the Red Sea area. He also stated that the relations between his country and Kenya were very good, despite the total difference of political outlook. He also informed me that Ethiopia was very anxious to reach a settlement of the border dispute with Somalia. Ethiopia was very worried by the aid apparently given by the Sudanese Government to the Eritrean rebels.
In particular, the Minister expressed his belief that we in Britain, the British Govenment and ourselves, were prejudiced against the Ethiopian Government and that we were too ready to listen to those who opposed it. He also stressed that Ethiopia's choice of Marxism was a choice made by that country and that there was no Russian influence behind the choice. But he indicated that continued remarks and comments made by ourselves that there was a Soviet influence was more than likely to drive Ethiopia into Soviet arms.
The other aspect that came out of the meeting, which was at all times very cordial, was the tremendous dislike and distrust of the United States. I would say that this almost amounted to paranoia. I delved into this as best I could. It arises apparently
98
from the fact that during what the Ethiopians term the easterly invasion of the Ogaden by the Somalis in 1977–78, they called upon the Americans to supply the weapons which had been ordered and paid for. Under the guidance of President Carter, these weapons were denied. They turned then to the Soviet Union which was only too willing to give massive aid.
I should like to say a few words about my general tour in Ethiopia. I have now been twice, in October last year and June this year. Wherever I have gone, I have been allowed to go freely. I have always been allowed to speak to whomever I wished. Initially, I found a certain shyness, but as people got used to me—Lords are rather uncommon in that country—they were prepared to talk about any subject I raised, and I carried with me what could amount to seditious literature. They were prepared to read it, talk about it and discuss it very openly. I was up in Eritrea. I visited Asmara. I went down the long Italian road to Massawa. While there was much military in evidence, it was certainly not aggressive nor offensive. I asked in Massawa about a curfew. I was told that it was the most peaceful place there was in Eritrea. On being taken by my host for an evening out in Asmara, I asked him the same question. He replied "Most sensible people in this town are in bed by 11 o'clock, but if anyone is foolish enough to want to go out later he is perfectly free to do so".
I should like to turn briefly to Ethiopia's neighbours, Somalia and Sudan. Both these countries, as I have mentioned, are affected by the drought and the general food shortage. They are also badly affected by the vast numbers of refugees coming out of Ethiopia. I have a figure for Somalia of something around 750,000. I gather that recently about 50,000 have crossed into Somalia. There are over half a million refugees in Sudan already. More are on their way. This is why I referred earlier to the pre-empting of relief supplies. There are other people who are suffering.
Somalia is most anxious, or equally anxious, to have its border dispute with Ethiopia settled. Despite remarks that have been made by Colonel Goshu Wolde, there are still Ethiopian troops on Somali territory and Ethiopian planes still strafe and bomb Somali towns. Somalia itself is anxious for trade with this country. There have been recent changes in legislation to encourage capital to be invested in that country and to enable those who wish to take it out to be able to do so.
In the Sudan a state of emergency was declared in April this year. It was brought about by a number of things—the bombing of Omdurman by a Libyan plane, a certain amount of unrest that came with the introduction of decentralisation in the southern region and the lack, or bad implementation, of the Sharia, Islamic law. Fortunately, at the end of September that emergency terminated. But both Somalia and Sudan are very anxious about the role played by the media, and in particular by the BBC. They feel that it gives a great deal of time to those who are against the accredited governments of those countries and is not willing to listen to, or to give credit for, what the government itself has to say.
Certainly at the time when Sudan was introducing the Sharia the media did nothing to help; in fact, it did a great deal to harm not only Sudan's image externally

99
but Sudan's image internally. Great care must be taken by those who deal with the media as to how it reports the news and the details it gets. I must once again commend the cry for help to Ethiopia, but I would also remind your Lordships that there are other countries which need and will need that aid.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Lindsay of Birker: My Lords, I want to make a rather fundamental criticism of both defence and foreign policy. I know I am not alone in feeling that there is far too much emphasis on maintaining a balance of military power against the Soviet Union. In the short run, a balance of military power may be the only way to preserve peace. In the long run, it becomes increasingly dangerous. The Western powers build up military strength to defend themselves against the risk of a Soviet attack. The Soviet leaders see this build-up as something to which they have to respond. The result is an arms race with increasing danger of war.
Many people feel that the world is heading towards a completely disastrous war and cannot see any rational policy to get away from this drift. When there seems to be no way out, no rational way of escape from an intolerable situation, people tend to become irrational. A feeling of hopelessness about the future of the world may partly explain the increasing use of drugs, the rising membership of cults and increasing political extremism. I want to suggest that there is a possible strategy that offers a reasonable hope of preventing a major war.
Lenin once wrote:
"Words are more dangerous than bullets".
But a competition in words is less likely to lead to war than a competition in armaments. The Western powers have been strangely reluctant to engage in competition in words, and a good deal of what has been said, especially from the US, has actually been counter-productive. One can make a very strong case for the need to keep a balance of military power against the Soviet Union until there has been a change in Soviet thinking. It follows that the key to peace is to produce a change in Soviet thinking. I think that that is not an impossible task.
Many years ago, I argued that the great slogan for the West was:
"Any Communist who starts to think is a potential ally".
China has shown that Communist thinking can change. I can speak about this from first-hand knowledge, because I served in the Chinese Communist Army during the war against Japan and I have some very good friends in the Chinese Communist Party. What impressed me in the early 1940s was how much more reasonable most Chinese Communists were than Communists I had known in England. The doctrinaires seemed to be a minority.
Then, from 1949 on, there was a long period for most of which the Communists were extreme doctrinaires. After the British Labour Party delegation had visited China in 1954, Mr. Attlee, in a press conference in Hong Kong, said that what really alarmed him about the Chinese Communist leadership was the extent of their delusions about the outside world. They became more hostile to the West
100
and more secretive than the Soviet Communists. When Krushchev talked about the possibilities of détente, Chinese publicity denounced him as a revisionist and said that negotiations with the imperialists could serve no useful purpose except to show up the bad faith of their claim to want peace.
Now, of course, the Chinese Communists are still Marxist-Leninists and still profess an admiration for Stalin, but there are reasonable and fruitful negotiations, as over Hong Kong. Western contacts with China are more extensive and more friendly than with the Soviet Union. The Chinese Communists criticise Soviet imperialism. Some parts of orthodox Marxist-Leninist economics have been revised and the result is a rapid rise in the standard of living. Deng Xiaoping has revived the slogan of the early 1940s,
"Seek truth from hard facts".
and says that practice is the test of all theories.
I believe that a very stupid American policy was largely responsible for the Communist shift to a doctrinaire line; that a sensible American policy could have forced the Communists to a clear-cut choice between Chinese patriotism and loyalty to international Communism led by Stalin. One can also explain the new shift towards rationality. The massing of Soviet armies on the Chinese frontier was a very strong motive for improving relations with the West. The complete failures of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were a strong motive for new thinking about the parts of Marxist-Leninist doctrine on which they had been based.
If the Soviet Communists became as reasonable as the Chinese Communists are now, the risk of a general war would decline very rapidly. Unfortunately, the chances of spontaneous change seem small. There is a tradition of rationality in Chinese culture which may not exist in Russian culture. What is more important, the Soviet Communists have no motive to change their thinking when they can feel that they are winning, not only the competition in armaments but also the competition in words. They would have a motive for new thinking only if they were obviously losing in competition.
Some leading figures in the West have argued that an increase in Western military strength will induce the Soviet Union to negotiate. This view leads to a very dangerous policy. Potentially, the West has the industrial capacity to beat the Soviet Union in preparations for war, but it would require a diversion of the economy into armament production on the same sort of scale as in the Soviet Union. The resulting arms race would greatly increase the risk of war and the Soviet Union would have a strong motive to start a war while it still had some military superiority. Finally, it would destroy the possibilities for a competition in words which I believe the West could easily win at negligible cost and with negligible danger compared to a competition in armaments.
Large sections of the public in the West have been led to believe that the Western powers, and especially the United States, are at least as much to blame as the Soviet Union for the present international tension. The result has been the rise of movements trying to stop or slow down Western rearmament. In so far as

101
these movements succeed, they shift the balance of military power in favour of the Soviet Union.
The Soviet publicity apparatus has tried to promote this view of the world. It has had a good deal of success because it has been able to operate with very little competition and has actually been helped by reckless or exaggerated Western publicity. One thing that is needed is wide publicity for the distinction between genuine peace movements and propaganda fronts. The test is very simple. Does the organisation judge both sides by the same standards?
What is needed even more is a clear and repeated statement of the evidence that has led many well-meaning, well-informed and thoughtful people to believe that the Soviet Union is an imperialist power with a long record of expansion by the use or threat of military force when the risks involved are not very great. This implies that it is necessary to maintain a balance of military power until there has been a change in the Soviet Union.
When there seemed to be a measure of détente in 1956, I tried an experiment. I wrote a statement in which I argued that the real danger to peace came from mutual suspicion between the Communist and the non-Communist powers that each side had aggressive intentions. To help clear up these suspicions, I suggested that I should write a statement of the non-Communist case for suspicion of the Communist powers. A Communist would comment on this and produce a statement of the Communist case for suspicion of the non-Communist powers, on which I would comment. If genuine reasons for suspicion remained, the next stage would be to discuss the actions needed to remove them.
I sent my proposal to Chiao Guanhua, who I knew, and got a reply saying that it seemed a valuable proposal and that someone in China would be glad to co-operate. I started to send off sections of my statement covering various topics, each containing questions that the Communists would have to answer to remove reasons for suspicion. The reaction was a refusal to engage in the project. I thought that the explanation might be an unwillingness to criticise the Soviet Union, which was then an ally of China. I then sent my proposal to the Soviet Academy of Sciences and received the same reaction—an initial favourable reception and then a refusal to discuss. I described this project in a book entitled Is Peaceful Co-existence Possible?, published in 1960 by Michigan State University Press, and in it I pointed out that it was easy to refuse discussion with one individual in academic life, but it would be very much harder to refuse discussion if non-Communist governments raised the same type of questions.
Let me give a simple example. Let us take the issue of imperialism. In the 19th and early 20th centuries both the Western powers and Russia were clearly imperialist. In 1917 Lenin described Russia as an imperialist power in Finland, Courland (that is, the Baltic states), Poland, Bokhara and Khiva (Central Asia), and all other areas inhabited by non-Great Russians. Since 1945 the Western powers have given independence to all the subject peoples of their former empires, with very few exceptions. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, has retained all the Tsarist empire except for Finland and Poland and has acquired some
102
other territories which never belonged to Tsarist Russia. If the Western powers pressed hard and repeatedly for public discussion of such questions, Soviet Communists would have to make changes in their thinking to give answers that would not appear ridiculous. And ridicule is what is most disturbing to a real doctrinaire.
People who have had long conversations with members of the Soviet foreign policy bureaucracy report that the latter really believe that Soviet actions since 1945 have invariably been purely defensive and reactive. This could be shown to be obvious nonsense. Take, for example, German rearmament. That actually started first in the Soviet zone of occupation, which had an army of about 100,000 with tanks and artillery before the Western powers had even decided in principle to allow the formation of a West German army.
It is often said that the Soviet régime is not suffering from persecution mania, but is merely reacting to the Russian experience of numerous invasions. That is a bad argument. France suffered German invasions in 1870, 1914 and 1940 and an allied occupation in 1815; and she fought the Hundred Years War against British invasion while the Russians were suffering from the Mongol conquest. But the French feel no need to prepare for the risk of a new German or English attack. George Kennan described actual developments very well when he wrote:
"It is the undeniable privilege of every man to proclaim truthfully that the world is his enemy, because if he really believes this and takes it as the basis of his conduct, he makes it true".
In 1944 there was very wide sympathy for the Soviet Union in both the United Kingdom and the United States, but Stalin's developing paranoia changed that sympathy to hostility. I was glad that one of your Lordships said very much the same thing; we are in agreement.
To understand Soviet thinking one needs to understand Marxism-Leninism—both its power of attraction and its defects. It is attractive because it offers a unified view of the world and a mission in life. In those respects it is far superior to the positivist philosophy accepted by many Western intellectuals which teaches that truth is a matter of opinion and offers no valid purpose for life. The most serious defect of the version accepted by most Communists is the claim that Marxism-Leninism is a science and that science gives certain and final knowledge—not merely what it is reasonable to believe on the available evidence. If someone really believes that he knows with absolute certainty what is best for human society, he is only logical in trying to impose his views on everyone else and in repressing any criticism.
In fact, the real world is different from the world as it ought to be according to Marxist-Leninist doctrines, so Communists live under continual psychological tension. They develop mental blocks against facing the evidence or asking the questions that would disturb their faith, but, if those blocks crumble, they tend to become reasonable people.
Some of the most effective arguments against Soviet Communists could be based on the sensible parts of Marxism-Leninism. Both Marx and Lenin argued that an apparatus of repression and control was needed to maintain the dominance of the ruling class. An

103
obvious corollary is that the size and power of the apparatus of repression and control are measures of the conflict between rulers and ruled. It follows that the monstrous size and power of the KGB reveals that the conflict between rulers and ruled is greater in the Soviet Union than in the Western democracies.
Again, there are passages in Marx that recognise the existence of societies in which an oppressive ruling and exploiting group owe their privileged status not to ownereship of the means of production, but to control of the apparatus of the state. This obviously fits the Soviet system, which also justifies Lenin's warnings that a Russian revolution might degenerate into oriental despotism.
Such a strategy in the use of words would not produce an immediate change in Soviet behaviour but, over a few years, it could stimulate new thinking among members of the CPSU. If members of the CPSU started to think rationally they would naturally conclude that the Soviet Union would have much greater security if its foreign policy became less paranoid. They might even change as much as the Chinese Communists.
Competition in words would not prevent the Western powers from saying to the Soviet Union: "However much we dislike each other, we have one clear common interest; namely, to conduct our competition in a way that does not lead to a war that would be disastrous for both of us". The chief obstacle to all this is the attachment of officials to conventional behaviour. My Lords, I have spoken long enough: I could expand on that point, but I believe that I may as well finish my remarks here.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, I listened with fascination to the speech which we have just been privileged to hear, and I particularly welcomed the words which the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, spoke about China. I have often been quite astonished in your Lordships' House, and, indeed, elsewhere, that we can talk about defence, international affairs, the Middle East, Latin America and East-West relations, but there is never a mention of China, never a mention of a quarter of the world's population. Therefore, I warmly welcome what the noble Lord has said about the significance of changes that are going on in China. In recent years I have made two visits to China, and I have some understanding of what those changes mean: and I have in your Lordships' House on an earlier occasion explained why I believe that China is a most important factor in the world community.
However, having already made a speech in an earlier debate on that topic, I want instead this evening to talk about the problem of world hunger. In this debate a number of noble Lords have already spoken on that theme, and I should like to do so as well. I believe that the problems of peace and war, of armaments and disarmament, and of East-West relations will not be solved unless the world economic problems are solved. That is the basis.
About 10 years ago I attended in Rome the World Food Conference. I remember that Dr. Henry
104
Kissinger came to that conference and made a dramatic speech. He recalled that President Kennedy had set the American people the target to reach the moon in 10 years, and that they had succeeded in that objective. Kissinger then went on to say:
"Should we not now have another target for the next 10 years? Let us ensure that in 10 years' time no child in the world need go hungry to bed".
That decade of Kissinger's dream has now come to an end, and, far from achieving his objective, the TV cameras have shown not just hungry children but children dying without having beds on which to die, and doing so on a massive scale.
The truth is that we in countries which are rich have criminally failed the poor people of the world, and during these last few weeks, with the focus on Ethiopia, we have seen pathetic evidence of that failure. But that failure is geographically much wider than Ethiopia. Much of sub-Saharan Africa and Bangladesh in Asia are on the verge of tragedies as stark as that which we are witnessing in Ethiopia now.
I want to ask this question: if we have failed the poor of the world, who is it who has failed? Failure certainly cannot be laid at the door of the voluntary aid agencies. In recent weeks we have seen the dedicated work of organisations like the Save the Children Fund, the Red Cross, Oxfam and War on Want. We all know their work. They were there before the TV cameras came. They had been struggling throughout the years with all too few resources with which to do their job. Moreover, they had been warning governments of the impending disaster. No, we cannot blame the voluntary agencies.
Can we blame the ordinary people of this and other countries? Yes and no. When the evidence is brought before the man and woman in the street, as we have seen, generous response is immediate and impressive. Spontaneous efforts of all kinds by individuals, by churches, by farmers and by newspapers suddenly hit the headlines and much gets done, even if, for thousands of starving and dying people, what gets done is too little and too late. However, the sad thing about this kind of public response is that it is temporary, emotional and all too liable to fade. Hunger in the world in its long-term aspects is unfortunately the continuing concern of only a small minority of the public. The majority respond spasmodically, though generously, but they all too easily forget and turn away in the long term.
Where, then, I ask, does the blame lie? I have no doubt that the blame lies with governments—with our own Government and with the governments of most other countries in the developed world. They have not lacked warning after warning from people of great authority. We can look back to the Pearson report of a number of years ago and we can think of the two Brandt reports, whose message has been so forcefully reiterated in this country time and time again by Mr. Edward Heath, to his very great credit. Then there have been Commonwealth conferences under the leadership of Mr. Sonny Ramphal; and summits, one after the other, at Melbourne, Ottawa and Cancun. Over these recent years they have all acknowledged that crises and mass starvation were threatening the third world, particularly in Africa. Even in your Lordships' House a few of us have tried to sound the

105
warnings in months and years past, notably the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, in his remarkable speech a year or so ago.
Faced with these warnings, how and why have governments failed, and, in particular, how and why have our own Government failed? First, perhaps I may take an example from the very organisation which was set up as a result of the World Food Conference, to which I referred earlier. That conference decided to set up the International Fund for Agricultural Development—IFAD. Its structure, its purposes and its projects are, in my view, ideally suited to meet the needs of the poverty stricken countries now most in need. But what do we read in the president of IFAD's foreword to the recently issued annual report of that organisation? He says:
"In spite of the urgency of the problems of poverty and hunger, the flow of resources to agriculture and rural development in developing countries appears to be declining. IFAD, like other multilateral financing institutions, encountered a difficult resource situation. For the second year running the level of new commitments in 1983 was lower than in the previous year."
Moreover, I read recently in connection with this organisation that negotiations about the replenishment of its resources had failed, and I am wondering what part our own Government played in that failure or in trying to resist that failure.
Among the projects that have been approved by IFAD, I read of one in Ethiopia. IFAD planned to co-operate with the International Development Agency in measures for agricultural development in that country. Yet the funds of both the IDA and of IFAD are now severely under threat because of the failure of Western countries, our own included, to replenish the resources of these two organisations. In the Ethiopian context I am wondering whether even that project is now under threat because of lack of funds.
The supreme irony surely is that, while the attention of the media is focused on short-term rescue operations in Ethiopia, Western governments are failing to support the very organisations which can ensure long-term agricultural development. In Britain, is it not also supremely ironical that at the very time we are at last bestirring ourselves as a nation to respond to Ethiopia's needs, we read that in the Star Chamber on Public Expenditure, over which the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, presides, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is seeking agreement to cut the aid programme still further? I should mention that I was also glad to read that, to his credit, Mr. Timothy Raison, the Minister for Overseas Development, was putting up a fight for his department. We shall be watching the outcome of that disputation with particular anxiety.
However, even if Mr. Raison succeeds in his endeavours, as I very much hope he will, I want to point to two criticisms that have often been made of this Government's policy concerning overseas aid and development. When they took office they lost no time in saying that they would administer the aid programme according to the commercial and political benefits to this country. And so we have had projects such as steelworks in Mexico and India, rather than projects for producing food in Africa. We have been ungenerous in our aid to Ethiopia because it has a
106
government which we do not like. Surely the lesson of the last few weeks is that our objective should not be our own commercial and political benefits: our objective should be to save the lives of those who are starving, irrespective of the political colour of those who rule over them.
Even yesterday, in the gracious Speech, we saw evidence of the wrong-headed approach of the Government to these matters. The emphasis in the gracious Speech was on the opportunities for private investment in developing countries. There is nothing wrong with that investment properly directed, but it is a question of getting the balance and the emphasis right. I quote again from the President of IFAD when he wrote:
"this Fund is looking at the developing world not merely as an area for investment possibilities, but as a partner in development".
That represents the policy of my party, the Labour Party. Those are the criteria upon which we believe an aid programme should be administered. It should be the development needs of the developing countries which are the criteria upon which decisions should be made.
From all this I draw three main conclusions. The first is that the British public will respond to the needs of the third world. It is not an electoral vote winner, but they will respond and support governments who are generous in aid and development; but the public need constant reminders. They need constant information about the situation in the third world; they need constant development education; and I believe it to be the Government's responsibility to ensure that they get those things.
Secondly, to a much larger extent than at present aid must be directed to agricultural and rural development, both bilaterally and, as I have suggested, through the appropriate multilateral agencies. Thirdly—a theme on which I have spoken many times in your Lordships' House—we cannot meet the needs of drought-ridden Africa and of the other poverty-ridden nations of the world unless, as the World Bank insists, we provide much greater resources to rescue the continent of Africa and the other countries. This means—and let us face it—that Britain needs a much larger aid programme. We should at least aim to fulfil the target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP, as other countries do; and we should not run away with the excuse that is so often given—"Yes, we accept that in principle, but we have no timetable". We must have a timetable. The situation is urgent, and the response should be urgent, too.
8.44 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, first one must obviously congratulate two excellent maiden speakers. Their speeches were a pleasure to listen to. Great thought and intelligence have gone into their construction. What a magic place your Lordships' House is. If I had been looking for a place to find somebody who had fought for the Chinese Communists in 1949, certainly I would have come straight to your Lordships' House—and lo and behold, there he is!
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, blames the successful countries for the failure of the unsuccessful countries.

107
We have succeeded, and they have failed; and it is not our fault that they have failed.
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings".
I would suggest to your Lordships that an over-nannying approach to the third world is colonialism in reverse, which enriches the corrupt régimes which organise and keep their own subjects in poverty.
Last week I was privileged—and I use that word totally advisedly—to visit the Falkland Islands, which is why I do not hesitate to address your Lordships' House today. That visit was an inspiration. But of course as not everything is perfect, as it is always easier to criticise, and as there are factors of Falklands life which merit criticism and aspects of government which deserve censure, I shall start with that which deserves praise and congratulation because by far the greater proportion of our effort there deserves and earns applause and approbation.
Armed forces morale is high, their readiness state is all that could be asked of them, and they give an air of well-trained cleanliness and toughness. The Falkland Islanders are completely and utterly English in a moving way and in a very gentle way. Their development is complicated by the fact that the previous economic government of the islands has been paternalistic in its attitudes and all-embracing in its influence, which has been a very formative one on their lives. However, in spite of this paternalistic background the Falklanders have seen that change is inevitable, and realise that their lives, regrettable though it may be, have been changed by recent events more drastically than could have been realised possible a few short years ago. They accept, and ask for, careful development allied to qualified immigration.
What are these development potentials? Fisheries, obviously. Otherwise there would not be 70 foreign trawlers trawling in the Falkland waters. Incidentally, with unemployment in the fishing ports in the North-East of England, can anybody explain to me why it is only now that one Grimsby trawler is on its way? It would seem quite essential that the 200-mile fishery limit is imposed, and the arguments of lack of ability to protect, which both the New Zealanders around New Zealand and the French around Kerguelen ignore, are not valid. Furthermore, it is sensible to start issuing oil prospecting licences. Incidentally, the sheep farmers there do not get the same sort of subsidy, the same sort of support, as either the Welsh or Scots hill farmers in this country.
Oil and fish development are not only in the interests of the Falkland Islanders and of the British Government but also, in an obscure way, in those of the Argentinians also. Presumably, in the unlikely circumstances—perhaps I had better say circumstances which are inconceivable at the present time—of cession of the Falkland Islands to Argentina, she would rather annexe a country whose fisheries are properly protected and for whose oil sensible provisions are being made.
Before I went there I had heard ideas of tourism, and quite frankly I raised my eyebrows and found the idea of turning Port Stanley into Benidorm mildly absurd.
108
It was only when I had seen the quite outstanding quality of the wildlife that I realised that there is certainly a market for animal and bird viewing and photography which is genuinely comparable with East Africa's. Of course, sensitive and intelligent development are necessary as well as intelligent and clever selling of a specialised product to a careful market and to avoid commercial destruction. It is not well known that sea trout and trout fishing are such that everybody in the garrison wants to do it; and that, for instance, a 221b sea trout was caught not long ago. Iceland and Norway compare, but it is interesting to note that the Norwegians have asked a rent of over £800 per fish a year caught. Admittedly that is for specimen fish, but it shows what the demand is nationally for quality fishing.
Now, criticisms. I start with a criticism of the present issue khaki trousers. I was made aware of this criticism by an officer who had been on the "Galahad" when it was bombed. These particular trousers are issued to the troops, and as they burn they attach to the skin, thus making the wounds more serious. Perhaps my noble friend could look into this.
Incidentally, why is it down there that they buy South African vegetables which go from Cape Town to Covent Garden via the Ministry of Defence and back down to the Falkland Islands again? There is a ship which goes quite happily direct to the Falkland Islands from Cape Town. Not only would this ensure that they would get better fresh vegetables but it would also ensure that the quality is higher. I am certainly not in any way a defender of the South African regime. I think it is rather nasty and squalid, but they produce rather nice lettuces, cabbages and tomatoes which I am sure the soldiers on the Falkland Islands would very happily eat.
The next criticism is the possibility that the Treasury is trying to lay its hands on the £200,000 that it costs for the soldiery to send free letters home and back. This is a very minor cost, but it is perhaps impossible for those sitting in the comfort of the metropolis to realise the very serious effect on morale which would occur if this privilege were withdrawn. It is not easy to walk to the post office in Stanley on account of the state of the road, to which I shall come later. It is impossible to walk to the post office in Stanley when you are sitting 800 feet up on the top of Mount Kent, living for four months in a tin box watching a radar set. I know that the general commanding feels that this is extremely important and not only does he feel strongly but all ranks to whom I spoke feel the same. For the Treasury to remove the "bluey", as it is called, would make Scrooge look like the Danae scattering of gold.
I now come to not a criticism but to what I regard, as does everyone else on the islands and in our delegation, as a scandal of Crimean proportions. The road between Port Stanley and the airport, all five kilometres of it, was repaired after the conflict at a cost I think of about £6 million. The man who wrote the specification for that road repair should never see his index-linked pension, but I presume he will, and I presume he will get a knighthood. Instead he should be made, like Sisyphus, to push heavily-loaded trucks of rock up and down that road all by himself, mending the springs and the punctures as they occur, which

109
they inevitably will do, and he should do that for all eternity!
It appears that the Overseas Development Authority and the Ministry of Defence are arguing about who should pay for the repair of this road. I would suggest to them that it is not the Overseas Development Authority, or the Ministry of Defence, who pays; it is the taxpayer. He will have to pay the cost of incompetence and every hour that a decision to repair properly is postponed the cost increases, not only in regard to the repair of the road itself, but also in regard to the damage to vehicles and the damage to soldiers' backs. Numbers of them are now reporting sick because of back injuries caused by jolting upon that road.
When the road was completed it was possible to drive on average at about 40 mph from Stanley to the airport. It now takes good half hour which is expensive in time, money, vehicles, spare parts and frayed tempers, let alone operational efficiency. I can beg no more strongly that a decision is made to repair the road as soon as possible and, above all, to be careful that exactly the same situation does not arise on the new road from Stanley to the new airport complex at Mount Pleasant. When we went to Mount Pleasant all of us were extremely impressed by the fact that the project is on time and within budget. This is a project costing into the hundreds of millions of pounds, so that is possibly why one gets even crosser about a road to the tune of £6 million.
The same air of high morale was present; hard work was obvious both among the workforce and contractors. The only cloud that appeared was when we asked the Property Service Agency gentleman in charge about the road from Stanley to Mount Pleasant. He shuffled his feet, looked at them, and said, "You get what you pay for". If the same thing arises on that road that has arisen on the Stanley Road, and we expect the taxpaying population of about 1,800 people gross, with a relatively poor standard of living, to pay for the repair and maintenance of a fairly long road—if we get it wrong—it will be incompetence on the part of the Government and unfair to the islanders. Having made these few criticisms, I must reiterate that, apart from them, what I saw was an inspiration, and what I did I shall remember for a long time.
I think it worth, in conclusion, to add that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister seems to be everybody's hero down there. This surprisingly does not apply to Mr. Tam Dalyell. There is no doubt in the military mind that the sinking of the "Belgrano" saved casualties on a grand scale and made what was a risky adventure marginally less hazardous. When one sees the battlefields of Longdon and Goose Green at close quarters it is impossible to understand how the Argentinians failed to hold their positions, and unbelievable to contemplate the skill and courage which enabled victories of such sublime quality to be won against such unreasonable odds. Unlike the Argentinian admirals, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, seems incapable of understanding this. This may be unfortunate for us, but it is much sadder for him.
The importance of anything that reduced those odds by keeping the Argentinian Navy bottled up in port, and keeping their carrier-borne aircraft firmly based
110
on land, far outweighs any argument about minor changes of course of a fast, well-equipped warship, or whether my right honourable friend should have released information earlier or later than she did. Those are parish council arguments and, compared with reducing the risks to a very large proportion of the Royal Navy and the pride of British infantry, of which we know that Marshal Foy said:
"They are the finest in the world; thank God there are so few of them";
they pale into insignificance.
We are not suggesting to Argentina that she give up her claim to the Falklands. All we are asking is that she does not press it by force. We are, furthermore, asking her to recognise the rights of the Falkland Islanders to choose. That is the linchpin of the Anglo-Argentine dispute. We are not asking them to go as far as Germany in giving up her claim to Alsace-Lorraine, and after all the German claim to Alsace-Lorraine was quite a good one. We are not asking her to go as far as France in giving up her claim to the Saar. We are not even asking her to go as far as the kings of England in giving up their claim to Aquitaine: all we are asking her to do is to allow the Falkland Islanders the democracy that she now claims for herself.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, almost every gracious Speech I have heard or have read has, like the present one, announced the Government's intention to seek and to preserve peace, to contribute to arms control and to disarmament negotiations. Yet over the years arms have got more and more out of control. Governments have announced their intention to stop nuclear proliferation, and yet nuclear weapons have proliferated. While there had been talk of disarmament, in practice there has been rearmament and more armament: more accurate, more deadly.
The Government announce their intention to play a constructive role at the United Nations. Yet they have played a remarkably destructive one, voting against almost every disarmament proposal, as my noble friend Lord Brockway has pointed out. The only thing the Government do not promise to do in this White Paper is to provide a civil defence against nuclear war. They used to do that, but the notion has now become too ridiculous for them even to promise it, let alone to pretend to provide it. All there is is the waste of a few millions of pounds of public money in dressing up an illusion which even those who take part in it do not believe in any more.
Way back in 1957 one of America's most distinguished military men, General of the Army Omar Bradley, one of the few five-star Generals, said this:
"For twelve years now we've sought to stave off this ultimate threat of disaster by devising arms which would be both ultimate and disastrous.
This irony can probably be compounded a few more years, or perhaps even a few decades. Missiles will bring anti-missiles, and anti-missiles will bring anti-anti-missiles. But inevitably, this whole electronic house of cards will reach a point where it can be constructed no higher.
At that point we shall have come to the peak of this whole incredible dilemma into which the world is shoving itself. And when that time comes there will be little we can do other than to settle down uneasily, smother our fears and attempt to live in a thickening shadow of death".

111
That is how General Bradley saw it, and other distinguished military men, as your Lordships will be aware, have delivered themselves in a similar sense. The situation General Bradley foresaw has in fact come to pass. We now live in that "thickening shadow of death", and we only live, as he said, by "smothering our fears"—at what psychological cost, especially to young people, God only knows.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in his speech, tossed out a phrase in passing.
"If the world lasts another 20 years",
he said. This is the situation we are in. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and I have argued over the years about nuclear disarmament, unilateral and multilateral. He has been cross with me at times, but now we are together in thinking it possible that our civilisation—perhaps mankind itself—may not survive to see the year 2000.
In the light of that (and the conviction is spreading) the Government must change course. President Reagan must change course. It is no use continuing to talk peace while preparing for ultimate war. It is no use America doing that; it is no use the Soviet Union doing that; and it is no use us doing it. It is necessary to recover the international laws of war which protect the civilian population from mass murder. Those laws still exist in theory, but they have been lost in practice. Perhaps in a very small way that is what the fuss about the "Belgrano" is about: was it or was it not legitimate?
I may perhaps have mentioned this before, but on 5th December 1940 the Clarendon Press in Oxford issued No. 42 in its series of Oxford pamphlets on world affairs. The booklet was entitled What Acts of War are Justifiable?, and it was written by A. L. Goodhart, who was at that time Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Oxford. What Acts of War are Justifiable? was provided by the Bureau of Current Affairs to officers in the three services and I received my copy (I have it here) when I was commissioned in the Royal Air Force in 1941.
A powerful and informative tract, it carried great weight, and at the beginning of the last war British forces were informed by the civilised ideas it enunciated. Under the influence of these ideas, pilots dropped their bombs into the sea rather than risk killing civilians, if they could not find the exact military targets. Aircrews lost their own lives rather than risk killing defenceless old people, women and children. People died rather than be guilty of breaking what Professor Goodhart called, "the greatest triumph of international law"—the separation of civilians from combatants.
How different, my Lords, is the duty of an RAF officer today! In his pamphlet, Professor Goodhart condemned the Nazis for their devastation of Rotterdam and their aerial bombardments of Coventry and London, which were already taking place as he wrote. Nevertheless, he said (and I quote):
"this need not make us despair for the future. International law as recognised by the civilised nations will not cease to exist because one state has deliberately violated its provisions … It is to re-establish the laws of war in a world threatened by barbarism that this war is being fought.".
Poor Goodhart! He could not have been more wrong. If that war was fought to re-establish the laws of war,
112
then it was fought in vain and every man-jack and woman-jill died in vain. Poor all of us! For Coventry was followed by Hamburg and Dresden, and we were breaking the rules of war even more barbarously than the Germans. In the end came Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which perhaps marked the beginning of the end of our civilisation.
Goodhart was right to say that when he wrote we had no cause to despair, but those who do not despair at what has happened since are deceiving themselves. The combination of the capacity to exterminate the human race and the removal of international inhibitions against doing so must be totally lethal in the end unless we stop it. The question therefore becomes not whether but when, and the answer depends, I think, upon whether there is a massive rebellion against all of us becoming the victims of the scientific ingenuity of a few, combined with the helpless resignation of the many. At present there are no signs of such a worldwide rebellion although, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, told us earlier, there may be the beginnings of it all over the world. I hope he is right, because I think this is the only way we can save ourselves. At present there is protest and concern, but all over the world those with the power to destroy us all—whether they be East, whether they be West—insist that they must retain that power, and they speak and act as though its exercise was a rational possibility.
Just as the Hague Conventions of 1907 and the League of Nations in 1938 declared civilians to be safe and sacrosanct under international law, so the London Agreement on War Criminals in 1945 reasserted the view. They declared that international law was superior to national law; that government leaders and subordinates were equally guilty when a war crime was committed; that superior orders were no defence; and that a war crime included (and I quote),
"the wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages".
The wanton destruction of humanity, and possibly of our civilised world, was not mentioned as even when these rules were adopted by the United Nations International Law Commission in 1950 understanding of the full horror of the ultimate use of the nuclear weapon in its later forms was still in the future.
However, concern continued, and in 1977, at Geneva, an extensive new protocol was adopted which was said to "reaffirm and develop" the existing protections. Under this protocol, the methods of war were limited to those not causing widespread damage to the environment or causing unnecessary suffering. The "study, development, acquisition or adoption" of new weapons was prohibited if they were in breach of the protocol. Furthermore, not only were civilians protected from attack; they were not even to be threatened with it.
It was hardly noticed at the time that the United States, meekly followed by Britain, entered a reservation declaring that nuclear weapons were not, so far as they were concerned, covered by the protocol! Thus the measure was held by us not to contain within its scope the chief danger to the civilian populations it was supposed to be protecting. It is a melancholy tale and no Government of any complexion is free from

113
responsibility. None of us is free from responsibility. I would not exclude myself as being free from responsibility; or anybody else for that matter.
It seems to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the deployment of any nuclear missile must be in breach of the principles of international law as enunciated by Goodhart, in spite of the Americo/British reservation on this particular protocol, for all previous conventions protected civilians without qualification and they remain in force. This is made quite clear in the protocol itself. So I do not think we have succeeded in opting ourselves out, even if we wanted to do so. It seems to me to be in the interests of us all that our position in this matter should be clarified and reasserted.
The present position in this country is that under the British Manual of Military Law members of our armed services are forbidden under pain of death to commit war crimes on the one hand, but are under orders to commit them on the other. The British manual upholds the laws of war which, as we have seen, among other things forbids the killing of civilians. The manual specifically says that such things are war crimes punishable by death and must not be committed even when ordered by a superior.
For example, the crew of a Polaris submarine must be constantly in danger of such violation. Coded targets and radioed firing orders imply blind and irresponsible obedience in violation of the Nuremberg principles. City targeting implies a conspiracy to commit war crimes against civilian populations. Yet it is the crew which is subject to regular psychiatric tests and not those whose avowed policy it is to give the order to fire! In the lecture notes on the "Law of Armed Conflict" at Sandhurst, it says that there has been a tendency to forget the rules of war in the concept of total war. They can say that again.
Concern about the incredible situation we are in has been expressed in the United States. The Rand Corporation and the Ford Foundation last year published a report saying:
"The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction appears to be directly opposed to the most fundamental principles found in the international law of armed conflict".
Nevertheless, it continues and has been refined and made much more likely. The view may be taken that it is now perhaps too late to resurrect what Professor Goodhart called:
"The greatest triumph of international law".
If it is, then the future of our species is likely to be nasty, brutish and short.
9.12 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, this has been a far-ranging debate and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, will forgive me if I do not follow him down the route of the complexities of the rules of war. I want to concentrate very briefly on four points in the gracious Speech which concern Latin America. First, perhaps I may say how much I welcome the announcement of the forthcoming visit by the President of Mexico. Mexico is a most important country in Latin America, strategically located on the southern United States border. During
114
the latter part of the last presidency, the economic situation was in some disarray, but President de la Madrid has inspired a spectacular recovery and come to grips with the problems of international debt. Mexico has a very long connection with the United Kingdom but, regrettably, a very low level of trade. I hope that the president's visit next June will focus attention on this great country and will stimulate both trade and investment.
The gracious Speech also has a line in it which encourages investment in developing countries. I therefore find it somewhat surprising that we have declined the opportunity to invest in the Inter-American Investment Corporation—a subsidiary of the Inter-American Bank which has been set up to promote joint venture equity operations in Latin America in the private sector—an important subject. The other non-regional members of the Inter-American Bank have joined. It therefore seems to me that the British failure to participate in this venture is inconsistent with the words and intentions of the gracious Speech.
Turning briefly to Central America, I should like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government upon sending observers to El Salvador. This was a most worthwhile exercise. They certainly produced a very interesting report. The problems of Central America are many and compex but many noble Lords will, I feel, be full of admiration for the courage and tenacity of President Duarte in his search for dialogue and understanding.
The situation in Nicaragua is slightly more complicated and I am not certain that the recent elections were wholly representative. But they do demonstrate an important move forward, and I am very glad to hear that several noble Lords have visited Nicaragua at this time. Perhaps more important, in the aftermath of the recent United States elections, must be the general hope that the United States will now take a more dispassionate and perhaps less phrenetic view of Caribbean problems.
Turning to the last and perhaps most important topic that I want to mention, this must be the Falkland Islands. The gracious Speech mentions this subject. My noble friend Lady Young referred to twin aims in the gracious Speech and suggested that they were compatible. I question this. It seems to me that United Kingdom policy is based on the status quo, which cannot be acceptable to Argentina and never will be. They will always maintain their claim and they will continue to press it, whatever may be the circumstances.
Nor is the status quo acceptable to the United Nations. At the recent General Assembly there was the same result as last year, but that can hardly be said to be a victory. Argentina on this occasion mounted a substantial lobby. President Alfonsin visited European countries. One might have expected things to be slightly different, but clearly we mounted a counter-lobby and overcame successfully what Argentina was attempting to do. But, I wonder, at what cost? I find it hard to believe that to achieve such diplomatic coups in the United Nations there will not be some price to pay in other diplomatic gestures to the EEC.

115
Also I find it hard to believe that this policy is really compatible with, to use the words of the gracious Speech, playing a constructive role at the United Nations. Surely we cannot turn the United Nations on and off when we wish. The sad fact is that, following the tragic breakdown of the discussions in Berne, a diplomatic impasse has been reached—and a political impasse also. Great patience will be required to get things going again. Great patience will be required on all sides.
I have had long experience of negotiating with Argentina. It has taught me that these negotiations, or any negotiations with Argentina, are seldom easy. It has been suggested in this debate that Argentina is somewhat intransigent, but so are we if we refuse, ever, to discuss sovereignty. Whatever happens, and however long it may take, in the end the solution will require compromise. So let us start at the beginning—with small steps, possibly taken one at a time, using the facilities of our superb and efficient Diplomatic Service.
In that context, I do hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to assure us that the suggestions made last week in The Times about cuts in our overseas representation are unfounded. We are going to need more diplomacy in the future, not less, if these problems are to be solved. But, whatever may be the state of our official relations, I can assure your Lordships that private relations between the citizens of Argentina and Britain are on a good basis.
This year, we have had the visit of a group of parliamentarians. That was not only significant but useful. Likewise, we have seen the reincorporation of Argentina into the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and that must be further encouraged. It is this sort of activity at a private level and informally which will help us to move forward. Every little activity between essentially friendly peoples will help. We must never forget that Argentina—fragile democracy that it is—is firmly part of the Western economic system and therefore is our natural ally in many instances.
Perhaps I may make a passing reference to my noble friend Lord Onslow, who was worried about fresh vegetables and such like. I remind him that a source of supply not only of fresh vegetables but of every other fresh commodity and food is available from one of the most spectacular and successful agricultural countries in the Western world, very near at hand.
In summary, listening to this debate one must regrettably come to the conclusion that making war seems to be easier than making peace. As a direct descendant of a distinguished exponent of the art of war I am naturally glad that we have been successful in those endeavours and that national security remains as the principal plank of our foreign affairs policy. But in a small, remote and relatively unimportant part of the South Atlantic, we are not doing so well in the matter of making peace. The gracious Speech and some of the speeches which followed it—particularly from the Front Bench—give little cause for encouragement in this matter. I hope therefore that, like the famous car-hire firm, we shall soon start to try much harder.
9.22 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who initiated this debate, and as I think she herself suggested, it is quite unsatisfactory to have a debate of a few hours on all the problems arising out of foreign affairs and defence. It is really inadmissible in principle, I would have thought, to do anything of the kind. How much better, I suggest, to follow the advice of my noble kinsman and have a debate on some kind of state of the union message concocted by the Foreign Secretary at some other time. Then we could at least concentrate on one subject in relation to certain principles which were laid down. That would be the sensible thing to do. I hope that the Government will consider that suggestion of my noble kinsman.
Apart from that, I quite agree with most of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos—and I agree wholeheartedly with the splendid speech made by my noble friend Lord Kennet. I thought that he was absent, perhaps engaged in some broadcasting activity, but I see that luckily he is here. In addition to agreeing wholeheartedly with his splendid speech, I shall join in the general congratulations on the two splendid maiden speeches we have heard—and in the congratulations to the Government for obtaining considerable success in their negotiations over Hong Kong.
In the 10 minutes or so at my disposal, I want to refer to two major issues; namely, the arms race and the Falklands. If I have time, I shall also say a few words about Europe. On arms, I fear that it seems likely after the election in the United States that the Americans—while no doubt trying their best to get some kind of summit going—will continue with their present policy of rapidly building up what they claim to be "parity" with the Russians, who for their part of course denounce such action on the part of the Americans as an effort to achieve "superiority". This, the Russians say, they are determined to prevent at all costs. The American effort—so I am assured and in saying so I am sure I am correct—involves the construction of at least a number of possibly mobile MX intercontinental missiles of immense power and accuracy; a whole new Super Trident fleet of nuclear submarines capable of bombarding the Soviet Union, largely undetected, from the sea; a large number of B1 super-bombers known as Stealth, which may well enable them to escape radar detection; many thousands of cruise missiles which could be employed on various platforms and would, I think, be very difficult to intercept; a number of formidable Pershing IIs which can reach the Soviet Union from West Germany within a few minutes; and no doubt, I am afraid, a beginning with the famous Star Wars anti-ballistic missile system which, if installed before the Soviet Union has anything equivalent, would in theory put that power at the absolute mercy of the United States and the sheer idiocy of which has been forcefully brought out by my noble friend Lord Kennet.
Given all this, quite a few people hold that Soviet apprehensions are, to some extent at least, comprehensible. It is quite true that the Russians, with whose form of Government no one here can have much sympathy and whose long-term ambitions are certainly most suspect, are continuing with the

117
production of SS.20s and with their own form of cruise. They are no doubt also rendering mobile, so I am assured—and thus immunising—many of their enormously powerful ICBMs. In addition, they have launched a huge Typhoon class of submarine whose powerful missiles could it seems easily reach North America if launched from the bottom of the Barents Sea, with more of these submarines still to come. I need hardly also say that both the Russians and the Americans are vying with each other in the construction of great aircraft carriers and the latest types of cruisers, destroyers, frigates and landing craft. Moreover, we now hear that the Americans intend to match the Russians in building up in Europe considerable stocks of nerve gases and other chemical weapons.
Most people, at any rate on this side of the Atlantic, find all these developments highly alarming; more particularly when they are accompanied by reports of United States military intentions to adopt the strategy of the so-called air-land battle whereby, as we understand it, local United States commanders would have authority to take nuclear and chemical action far inside enemy territory immediately after hostilities start. Are we to believe that after yesterday's American election the Russians will nevertheless duly return to the negotiating table, all then being well? Even if they do, one must indeed be an optimist to think that, apart possibly from some slight progress in Vienna as regards mutual balanced conventional force reductions, any agreement on arms limitation whether nuclear or conventional, is at all likely. One must be a considerable optimist to believe anything of that kind.
Probably, so far as nuclear weapons are concerned, a freeze on the production on these horrible engines of war, coupled with a mutual withdrawal of battlefield nuclear weapons, is, so to speak, the least unlikely outcome, and no doubt in the circumstances the most desirable, of any talks that may be held. Is it not therefore in our interests in this country to back up such proposals to the limit of our powers? I wonder whether the Government would at least reply to these simple questions.
I must say that I should have thought that they might legitimately favour proposals which probably now enjoy the support of a majority in Congress, even though they may be anathema to a White House which once again, I fear, is very much under the control of a number of hardline Californian Republicans. After all, each super-power already has, and will in all probability retain, sufficient nuclear capacity utterly to destroy the other on a second strike. What more could any sane Government really want?
It is also rather silly, I think, to say, as probably the Government will say, that we cannot have a freeze because it cannot be verified. What is the point of verifying it if your adversary is at your second strike mercy anyhow? Unless he is crazy, the assumption must be that he cannot in the circumstances make any profitable first use of his colossal strength, for if he does he will simply be destroyed also. But, if so, then neither can we.
It must accordingly be our hope that these rather elementary thoughts will penetrate the consciousness
118
of the two great opposing dinosaurs. Unlike individual human beings, nation states have been described by philosophers in the past as "cold monsters", so perhaps it never will. But as General de Gaulle on certain occasions used to say, "In politics one must never abandon hope". He was, of course, quite right.
Such considerations might, however, even penetrate our own national consciousness. Whatever is the point of building up a nuclear force of great capacity, such as Trident, when, first, if the Americans are in the war we shall necessarily rely on them for our second strike capability; and, secondly, if they are not in the war we should no doubt, in default of sufficient conventional forces, be defeated by conventional means and obviously thus have no occasion to rely on our deterrent to Soviet nuclear action, with which we should in all probability not be threatened anyhow? Even if it should be thought that we need a deterrent of some kind, something much less powerful than Trident should suffice. I believe that this argument is gaining ground even in military thinking in this country, which was previously hostile to any such idea.
I come now to the Falklands. It may be that in foreign affairs, too, nations, as I have already hinted, are seldom guided by reason but rather by emotion. If so, we may well never be able to arrive at any agreement with the Argentines but shall have (at the cost, presumably, of seriously weakening the defences of NATO) to maintain indefinitely a very costly ground, naval and air garrison in those unfertile islands in order to ensure that the 400 or 500 British families concerned never share anything approaching the fate of the 30,000 or so British subjects who have for long now, and under many regimes, happily carried on their various activities in the Argentine Republic. I feel that this is so unreasonable that even emotion will soon have to take second place.
Therefore is there any way to reconcile our feelings and our interests? I think that there is. The Argentinians must recognise—and I believe the present Argentine Government would recognise—that the future of the present islanders must be secured in that they should have a prospect of continuing their way of life, no doubt in some form of continuing association with their mother country. We, for our part—as I think the noble Lord who preceded me suggested—should recognise that there is a strong national myth in the Argentine according to which the islands, as a result of tradition and close proximity, in a sense "belong", as they would think, to the neighbouring country and should, thus, look chiefly towards Buenos Aires.
Surely in principle therefore while not surrendering "sovereignty" in the sense of just hauling down the Union Jack and hoisting the Argentine flag, we could agree to some kind of association of the islands also with the mainland, which would leave it open for the islands eventually to become an autonomous region of the Argentine Republic should a majority of the islands eventually so desire. There are naturally many other ways in which the wholly emotional and tendentious issue of "sovereignty" could be blurred and avoided—or so I think.
I consequently suggest that the negotiations should now be resumed on the basis that, after agreement has

119
been reached on means for ending hostilities and arranging for suitable economic co-operation in the general matters concerning the exploitation of the surrounding areas, the question of "the political future"—I repeat, "the political future"—of the Falklands should also be on the agenda. If the United States would be prepared to approve such a formula, as I have little doubt that it would, I also have little doubt that it would be found to be acceptable to President Alfonsin. It would certainly be welcomed by all our European friends and allies who may with difficulty be prevented from voting against us next year in the United Nations unless we do make some such sensible suggestion.
Lastly, Europe. As it seems to me, all recent talk about, "unity" rather than "union" is—as ably explained by Edmund Dell in The Times recently—quite off the mark and I am afraid designed to make out that these islands cannot be "European" in the sense that our continental partners are "European", but rather something exceptional and on a different plane from them.
120
Thus we turn down anything like the Colombo/Genscher plan which was simply designed to draw us all closer and closer together, and as has been pointed out today by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, we even refuse, though part of the system, to join the European Monetary Fund. All this is quite self-defeating. There is logically no reason whatever why we should insist on our being less "European" than France, Germany or Italy. For we are obviously now in the same boat and can easily make the Community work on lines that would not equate it with any kind of old fashioned federation.
The other day, in a powerful article, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, put forward the case for our at least joining the Monetary Fund, quoting the famous lines of Lewis Carroll, which I think might also now figure in Hansard:
"The further off from England, the nearer 'tis to France; So do not quail, beloved snail, but come and join the dance".
The noble Lord's "beloved snail" was no doubt Mr. Lawson. My own is the British people as a whole.
9.39 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, this debate has been taking place in the aftermath of the cruel murder of Mrs. Indira Gandhi and in the shadow of the appalling tragedy in Ethiopia—two terrible events that have been in the minds of your Lordships today. I join in the tributes to Mrs. Gandhi and in the welcome to the efforts of the Government and others to bring aid to those suffering in Ethiopia.
I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, on his most commendable and well-argued speech. I am delighted to have sat with him in another place over a number of years. Indeed, I recall that we sat through long watches of the night on the Committee stage of the steel Bill, then a record breaking Committee stage. I am even more delighted to be associated with him here in this more tranquil but particularly productive place, and he is clearly already playing a productive and, if I may say so, a most able part in our proceedings. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moran, on his admirable and thoughtful speech. He brings to the House great and, indeed, distinguished experience in the diplomatic service, culminating in his post as our High Commissioner in Canada. It is excellent that we shall now have the benefit of his valued guidance here.
This debate is also taking place against the background of the continuing failure to get major disarmament negotiations going again because of the refusal of the Soviet Union to resume them. I shall return to those negotiations in a moment. As my noble friend Lord Cledwyn indicated, he was covering certain major aspects of overseas affairs and I shall concentrate on defence. I begin by emphasising that NATO remains, and must remain, the foundation of our defence policy. I welcome the strong commitment to NATO in the gracious Speech. That being so, the policy of deterrence within the alliance remains fundamental to that commitment, as does our relationship with the United States, for she is our principal ally, though we have had our differences from time to time—both Governments have.
The gracious Speech gives arms control and disarmament high priority, after only national security and peace themselves. I welcome that. It is the overriding need of our time. If we could achieve some success there, we could do so much more to help overcome the other vast problem of our time: the problem of the third world—famine, starvation and disease. But let no one think that disarmament itself would produce some miracle cure. It will not. But that it would help defies denial, and my noble friend Lord Oram and others have referred to these matters.
Let us be quite clear and not afraid to say so: there is a real dread among many people of global nuclear war. It is a genuine and sincere feeling. We do no service to ourselves to decry it, or even ignore it. But are we keeping up all the pressure we can all the time? Clearly, the West must continue to be tough in negotiations, but we must also be seen to be sincere in our wish for agreement. There is mistrust on both sides. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester referred to these matters. We must do what we can to break that down and put all the impetus we can into getting the talks going again. I hope that the
122
noble Lord the Minister will say something more about the prospects—a matter upon which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, dwelt just now.
The strategic arms reduction talks—the START talks—on long-range nuclear weapons in Geneva stopped last December, when the Russians walked out after NATO's new medium-range cruise and Pershing II missiles were deployed in Western Europe. Likewise, they broke off the intermediate-range nuclear force talks, the INF talks, in Geneva last November. As we know, the Stockholm Conference on Disarmament in Europe to improve confidence-building measures ground to a halt last month. I am wondering what the prospects are when it resumes this month. My noble friend Lord Brockway had some optimistic feelings there.
On the conventional side, at the mutual and balanced force reductions talks, the MBFR talks, which are continuing in Vienna, the West has continued to make positive and constructive proposals, I believe. Perhaps there are better prospects there.
It was particularly disappointing that the talks on demilitarising outer space, planned for September in Vienna, failed to take place, it seems because the Russians wanted the Americans to cancel an antimissile test and to put President Reagan's "Star Wars" programme—a matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet; and perhaps I may say that I agreed with much of what he had to say—for anti-missile defence into the deep freeze. The United States—"just as provocatively", the Economist called it on 1st September—wanted to talk about offensive nuclear weapons at the same meeting—provocatively, as the journal said, because this was clearly a device to reintroduce the START and INF talks by the back door.
There is one other set of disarmament talks, and I particularly want to ask about that because it deals with chemical weapons—the 40-nation Geneva Conference on Disarmament. I have previously welcomed the initiatives the Government have taken on chemical weapons, and I hope they will continue to take a robust line. There has again been a call from the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Rogers, for a new generation of chemical weapons for NATO to counter the huge stockpiles of the Warsaw Pact, and during Exercise Lionheart Lieutenant-General Sir Martin Farndale was quoted in The Times of 22nd September as saying that NATO should have a retaliatory capability. But according to the Washington Post of that day, he added that that was up to the British Government.
One can understand that view from a military commander. I gather that the day after General Farndale's comment the Secretary of State, Mr. Heseltine, said while visiting Lionheart that there was a military preoccupation with the use of chemical weapons. He added that our view in the West is to pursue an arms control dialogue at the earliest possible moment and that in the meantime we must ensure that our own troops are protected against the threat.
Protection for our troops is plainly essential, but would the noble Minister, Lord Trefgarne, confirm that the Government have no intention of producing new chemical weapons? Indeed, how would they view

123
any United States proposal to make a new generation of them? It is important to have the Government's clear view.
We hope there will be progress with the treaty itself and that a sensible way will be found to deal with verification, which is particularly difficult with chemical weapons. If we insist on a perfect system, there will be no agreement. The Government's own disarmament adviser at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr. David Summerhayes, put it well in a lecture published a year ago:
"Those who insist on absolute verification may be blocking the way to agreement. The difficulty for the negotiators is in finding a satisfactory middle path".
That seems an acceptable approach.
What are the overall prospects for progress on arms control and disarmament? Perhaps a glimmer of light came last month, as my noble friend Lord Cledwyn mentioned earlier, in an interview given by President Chernenko to the Washington Post—his first ever interview with a Western newspaper, the Daily Telegraph said on 18th October. According to Time last week, on 29th October, Mr. Chemenko sounded more ready than in the past to accommodate the prospect of new dialogue with the United States, and he said:
"There are considerable possibilities in Soviet-American relations—very considerable possibilities".
The Russian leader cited four matters he thought President Reagan's administration could act on to convince the Russians of its seriousness about resuming broader talks: negotiation of a ban on 'militarising outer space, a mutual freeze on nuclear weaponry, ratification by the United States of two pending test-ban treaties signed in the mid-1970s, and a joint pledge to renounce the first use of nuclear weapons. There is nothing new in those Soviet demands, but, as the Guardian said on the 18th of last month:
"The importance of his words sprang not from any new initiative but from their tone and timing".
As Time observed, this is the first apparent indication that,
"Progress on at least some of the four issues might permit resumption of the stalled negotiations on offensive weaponry".
It is a pity that Mr. Chernenko has not been more forthcoming, but it is a start. I hope that the Minister can give his Government's assessment and say what further positive initiatives and steps they will take to seize this chance and persuade President Reagan to do the same. We congratulate President Reagan on his re-election. My noble friend Lord Caradon referred to the need for persuading the United States in certain other contexts as well.
What is so disappointing about the gracious Speech is that once again there is no evidence of any reexamination of defence policy and strategy overall. We complained of this when we debated the Defence Estimates in June, and, as the Guardian put it the day after they came out:
"what is lamentably missing so far … is the close inquiry into policy, and especially nuclear policy … Where, in a word, is the beef? … Possibly some enlightenment will come in the White Paper due in July".
124
That White Paper was on Ministry of Defence reorganisation. But, alas, no enlightenment came. And, once again, there is no enlightenment now.
Since that last debate concern has continued to grow over the Trident programme, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has said. I am not thinking here of the concern that some people feel about whether or not Britain should still have nuclear weapons; I am thinking of the ever-rising costs of the project and its effect on our capacity to meet our other commitments and whether we could not make a more effective contribution to defence within NATO in other ways through conventional forces. As we have seen already, there is a growing body of expert opinion against Trident. There is now said to be growing concern among Conservative Members of another place. I shall not dwell on all the various substantial arguments against Trident; they were covered last time in our previous debate. But I do want to mention costs.
When the Defence Estimates came out in May the total was put as just over £8.7 billion, but that was based on an exchange rate of some 1.5 dollars to the pound. Yet even in May the rate was down to around 1.38 dollars to the pound. So the Government were already under-estimating, some say to the extent of £400 million. But the exchange rate is now some 1.28 dollars to the pound, so the costs are higher still. But there are other aspects of costs not sufficiently examined so far.
When the Government announced Trident it was said, as the Financial Times noted as long ago as June 1981, that:
"70 per cent. would be spent in the United Kingdom and 30 per cent. … in the United States".
When the Comptroller and Auditor General published his report on 23rd February this year, he noted that of the total costs some 60 per cent. was expected to be incurred in the United Kingdom and some 40 per cent. in the United States. Now we see from the Defence White Paper that the proportion is not 70:30 in our favour, nor 60:40, but down to 55 per cent. to be spent here and 45 per cent. to be spent in the United States.
There is one other aspect of costs that it is important to highlight. The Government say that Trident will cost an average of only 3 per cent. of the defence budget. As the Director of the Centre for Defence Studies at Aberdeen University, David Greenwood, said very early on in an article in The Times:
"That may be true. But there are other ways of looking at that outlay … at least 55 per cent. of all defence spending goes on pay and pensions, boots and buildings. So the sums spent on Trident will soak up 12–15 per cent. of the money for research, development and production expenditure; and perhaps as much as 20 per cent. of the capital budget, strictly defined".
The former Navy Minister, Keith Speed said that the costs would take up 30 per cent. of the Navy's equipment budget, and he called, as we know, for Trident's cancellation. That puts the costs much more into perspective.
David Greenwood adds that where the Government are being most misleading is in claiming that Trident has not meant cutting conventional capabilities. He goes on:
"The Government says more rather than less is to be spent on new warships, armoured fighting vehicles and planes,"

125
and their weapons and ammunitions. But although that may be true, he says, it is not the whole truth. For one thing, money previously in the budget for replacing, modernising and the upkeep of conventional forces has actually been expunged to make room for Trident. His inescapable conclusion is that significant improvement in our conventional forces could be obtained for the money spent on Trident.
That brings me at once to the growing belief that we should concentrate instead on making a more effective contribution to NATO's conventional forces, and the calls for a major reappraisal of NATO's policies and strategy. But these calls have been going on for some time. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, in a most powerfully argued case, called very early on in 1982 for Britain to reject Trident and for the European allies to strengthen NATO's conventional capability as an essential contribution to the alliance.
Those arguments have, indeed, been gaining support. This is highlighted in the current issue of the NATO Review in an illuminating article headed "Strengthening Conventional Deterrence", by David Greenwood. But, as he says:
"There is good news and bad news. The good news is that there is now a clear consensus among NATO nations that a major effort should be made to strengthen conventional deterrence and defence in Europe. The bad news is that there is no real agreement on how best to do this".
In fact, he says that it is worse than that because:
"the Alliance appears poised to embark on investments in so-called emerging technologies and on doctrinal revision, neither of which may achieve the desired result".
But the article points out that relatively little attention is being paid to what could be the key to the problem—getting a more effective non-nuclear defence through more efficient use of resources, notably by encouraging role specialisation among member nations. As we know, and as the article points out, the
"Alliance itself has concluded that it must reduce its dependence on nuclear arms because the existing strategy—entailing as it does relatively early resort to the most awesome weapons we know of—has been shown to be neither militarily ideal nor politically palatable".
He is not alone—there are clear difficulties—in concluding that
"the more efficient use of the Alliance's resources through role specialisation might be the way to go",
and, indeed,
"is the direction in which member nations are waiting to be led".
It would be interesting to know whether these matters will be raised at the meeting of NATO defence Ministers early next month to consider possible modifications in NATO strategy. This is, of course, linked with arguments and doubts about the policy to strike deep—the deep strike policy (there is too much jargon in our defence matters these days)—behind enemy lines in the early stages of any conflict; the concept of the air/land battle and of follow on forces attack—FOFA (more jargon)—and, indeed, the use of battlefield nuclear weapons; or whether the capacity to strike shallow, as Mr. Greenwood suggests, would be a more effective and safer way to arrest the start of a conflict.
126
Linked with all this is the question about moving to a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons, or at least, as a start, no early first use. It would be useful to know from the Minister whether these matters will be reviewed there, and whether Parliament will be told about the outcome.
I should like to add this on that matter. It is curious that there is really very little discussion in Parliament and, indeed, in this country about defence and NATO strategy and tactics. There is also a reluctance to discuss them. Indeed, there is a dearth of information readily provided. The Americans seem to have far more. After all, we have a very real interest in knowing all we can. For one thing, we have 55,000 troops in Europe. I am not blaming anyone in particular, but I am wondering whether more could be done; and the more we know, the more the Secretary of State will be able to show that we are getting value for money from his £17.033 billion budget.
Before coming to a final matter, I should just say about our debate today that noble Lords in all parts of the House have called attention to a variety of important subjects. It is a pity not to be able to refer to all of them. For example, my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred in their constructive speeches to Northern Ireland and relations with Eire; and there was the attractive idea by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, of an annual overseas report.
I come now to a final point that I should like to raise. It concerns the Secretary of State's plans to reorganise the Ministry of Defence—the first chance that your Lordships' House has had to discuss them since the decisions were announced on 18th July. He announced his proposals on 12th March. They were claimed to be a great exercise in open government and were published in a consultation document with the words "Defence, Open Government Document" emblazoned upon the cover—an approach which was most welcome.
The proposals were greeted by prolonged and almost universal criticism from expert and informed opinion, from former chiefs of the Defence Staff, including noble and gallant Lords in your Lordships' House. It emerged that not only had the Chiefs of Staff of the three services not been consulted before the proposals were announced, but that not even the Chief of the Defence Staff, Field-Marshal Sir Edwin Bramall, had been consulted.
I must confess that that struck me as an odd example of openness in Government. I think it is carrying security a little far even in today's difficult times to keep the man to be named one's principal military adviser totally in the dark. I am driven to conclude that the Secretary of State's exercise in secrecy was to keep his mind untarnished by the facts. However, in our defence debate on 14th June I stated that we had no objection in principle to reorganisation, and said how wise he was to float his ideas before deciding, because of the trenchant criticisms from many experienced quarters, and I hoped that he would be wise enough to weigh those carefully before deciding.

127
What happened, my Lords? The day after the decisions were announced, the Daily Telegraph said it all in a leading article on 19th July:
"Mr. Heseltine declares that the debate stimulated by Defence, Open Government Document has been of great value"—
quoting the Secretary of State—
"in the development of his plans. It is nice of him to say so, but there is no suggestion that the Defence Secretary has modified his most controversial reforms one jot."
The Telegraph goes on:
"Mr. Heseltine's aim is to cut the service chiefs down to size by virtually excluding them from any role in policy and strategy."
That was the fundamental criticism, that the single service chiefs would be effectively excluded from decisions on strategy and overall policy, and that it was wrong to have the Chief of the Defence Staff reporting directly to the Secretary of State as his principal military adviser while the three service chiefs reported only to him, the Chief of the Defence Staff, and were concerned with the management side of their services.
One reason given for the changes was said to be because it was wrong for the three services to compete for resources and to bring their perhaps conflicting claims to the Secretary of State instead of, as under the new plans, having the Chief of the Defence Staff sort it all out and then present a single view to the Secretary of State.
For, my Lords, it is no bad thing for those conflicting claims to be fought out at the highest level and stand the test of the most searching scrutiny.
That surely is the way to compel the creation of a system of priorities. That is the sort of creative and productive tension which leads to economy in using resources. It is ironic that this Government, who pride themselves on competition, should spurn and dismantle a built-in system of competitiveness which has so proved its worth. One would pay a fortune for a team of management consultants to devise a scheme like that, yet it is being thrown away by a devotee of management techniques.
I should like to put this question to the Minister. The Secretary of State said in another place on 18th July:
"We need to satisfy the public … that we are pursuing … the objective of value for money".—[Official Report, Commons; 18/7/84, col. 321.]
What savings in money terms will be made from this reorganisation? The question has been asked several times but has not been answered and if the Government do not know the answer how will they, in the Secretary of State's own words, "satisfy the public" about this matter?
What are the Chiefs of Staffs' views about all this now? The Secretary of State—not usually to be accused of being a master of the understatement—said in another place:
"I could not pretend … that if the single service chiefs were left to their own devices they would propose the centralisation of the Department along the lines that I have in mind".—[Official Report, Commons; 18/7/84, col. 325].
He can say that again! What did the Chiefs of Staff say for themselves? They tactfully and prudently stayed silent, but what an eloquent and deafening silence that was. They were spoken for by the Chief of the Defence
128
Staff, Field-Marshal Sir Edwin Bramall. He was reported in the Daily Telegraph of 9th August as saying:
"Given the option the Service Chiefs of Staff would have preferred not to have had the reorganisation now, but to have had the previous system strengthened".
In the same paper on 19th July he, the Chief of the Defence Staff, was reported as saying:
"There is complete unanimity in their view that they can live with the new system and make it work".
That is at once the most revealing and comforting statement yet. "They can live with it"; you can almost hear them grit their teeth and "They'll make it work"; your Lordships can hear their unspoken words despite all the absurdities and deficiencies. To use a piece of defence jargon we can count on the chiefs to apply damage limitation to the Secretary of State's handiwork and—who knows?—with luck the practice itself might be much as before.
Here, having paid a tribute to all the Chiefs of Staff, I should like now in a more serious vein to pay tribute to all our forces and to our reserve forces as well. Our armed services are a credit to our nation. They have proved their worth over the years and recently, and still in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. Their courage is unsurpassed. They are a great bastion for peace, something that we all trust will continue.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I wonder whether he would be so good as to allow me to ask one question? He has asked very many factual questions of the Government which I think it is most unlikely that they will answer. He has also made a wide and judicious choice of quotations from the words of other people. Am I right in thinking that the Labour party has recently adopted an identifiable defence and disarmament policy? If so, would he—even now—take half a minute to remind the House what it is?
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I should love to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, into further discussion of these matters; but I fear I should be trespassing a little too much—perhaps I have done so already—upon the kindness of the House. However, if I were to be tempted down that path one of the things to bring into our discussions would be the rejection at the Liberal Assembly in Bournemouth of Mr. David Steel's call about cruise.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, that does not bind the Liberal Members of Parliament.
10.10 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is my happy duty at the outset of my remarks to say how much I enjoyed and appreciated the maiden speeches of my noble friend Lord Eden and the noble Lord, Lord Moran. The speech of my noble friend, if I may say so, was a model of what a maiden speech ought to be; and the

129
speech of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, brought to your Lordships a degree of expertise and knowledge which we have come to appreciate from all sorts of noble Lords and which so adds to the strength of your Lordships' House.
My noble friend Lady Young has already emphasised, among other things, the importance the Government attach to arms control and to improving East-West relations. But it would be utterly foolish, as some would have us believe, to seek these things from a position of weakness.
We have to face the fact that there is a massive and growing Soviet military capability across the spectrum. Although the Soviet leadership has repeatedly stated that the Warsaw Pact is strictly defensive in nature, past and present policies belie such statements. Indeed, the Warsaw Pact's military strength is on a scale far in excess of anything that could possibly be required for defensive purposes.
Your Lordships will be familiar with the sort of threat posed by the SS.20 nuclear missiles, with over 700 warheads already facing us in Western Europe, and further bases under construction. Less familiar, but equally relevant, are other elements of the Soviet nuclear menace: up to 3,000 nuclear capable aircraft; nearly 1,000 nuclear capable artillery pieces, a force which is being steadily expanded; well over 1,000 shorter-range nuclear capable missiles; a force which is being modernised by the deployment of the more accurate SS.21 and 22, with another missile, the SS.23, ready for deployment.
Warsaw Pact conventional forces in Europe, when fully reinforced, considerably outweigh the NATO forces facing them. The Warsaw Pact possess over 46,000 tanks against NATO's 18,000, and significantly when one considers that last figure, they possess 35,000 anti-tank guided-weapon launchers to the Alliance's 19,000. Neither are Warsaw Pact forces short on firepower. They have 39,000 artillery pieces—NATO has only 15,000. And, of course they possess huge manpower reserves—outnumbering NATO by 1½ million men when reinforced—and many of our forces have to cross the Atlantic Ocean to reinforce Western Europe.
So what must we do to counter this massive threat? One area where the United Kingdom makes a contribution of unique significance to the alliance is in our possession of an independently-controlled strategic nuclear force.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I would prefer not to give way, if the noble Lord will forgive me. Several noble Lords have been critical of our choice of the Trident missile system, to replace Polaris when it starts to phase out of service in the mid-1990s. I would remind your Lordships that by that time Polaris will have been in service with the Royal Navy for nearly 30 years. It cannot go on forever. For our part we have spelt out in open-government documents the considerations which led the Government to favour Trident rather than any of the possible alternatives. I shall not detain your Lordships with a lengthy recapit-
130
ulation of the arguments. In our view, the passage of time has not altered the fundamental conclusions reached either in 1980 or in 1982.
The criteria adopted for determining the nature of a national nuclear deterrent force of last resort must of necessity be demanding. We must beware of "gold-plating" in relation to military requirements, in the nuclear as in other fields. But we must equally recognise that to opt for a system which is less than adequate is not just to choose a system which is second-best. It is to opt for a system which is useless—and indeed worse than useless. If our deterrent force is to be effective it must be capable beyond peradventure of delivering a blow which would inflict unacceptable damage upon an enemy.
This is no short-term aspect. Any system chosen to enter service in the 1990s would have to serve for many years thereafter and have to remain effective throughout that time. It is against that background that the Government were driven inexorably to the decision to purchase the Trident system. We believe that it offers the best long-term future course for providing us with that assured minimum capability essential in a strategic deterrent of last resort.
Trident is indeed expensive, but this should be kept in perspective. Its costs represent a considerably smaller proportion of the defence budget than any of our other major roles. The current Polaris force costs on average less than 2 per cent. of the defence budget, and we would expect Trident's running costs to be similar. Over the period of its procurement, Trident will cost on average only about 3 per cent. of the defence budget and about 6 per cent. of the equipment budget. We are currently reviewing the Trident project estimate as part of the annual recosting of the defence programme. Once that is complete, it will be my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's intention to announce a revised estimate. I can, however, state quite categorically at this stage that no comparable expenditure on alternative systems or on our conventional capability could possibly be of equal deterrent value.
I have spoken at some length about the importance of our strategic nuclear deterrent, but may I turn now to our conventional contribution to the alliance, which is no less vital, because we must ensure that we never allow the Soviet leadership to imagine that they could expect a very rapid or conclusive gain of NATO territory through conventional warfare alone and without the risk of nuclear escalation.
The United Kingdom contributes to alliance conventional forces in a wide area. We contribute 70 per cent. of the maritime forces devoted to the defence of the vital sea area in the eastern Atlantic and the Channel. We defend the United Kingdom itself which, given its crucial strategic position, is essential to NATO strategy. And, of course, we commit large forces to the defence of the Central Region—the forward defence of our own country. We have provided the necessary resources to sustain this major effort. By 1985–86 the defence budget will be about one-fifth higher in real terms (excluding Falkland additions) than it was in 1978–79.
At the other end of the scale, my noble friend Lady Young has already made reference to the provision by

131
the Government of two RAF Hercules to help distribute grain within Ethiopia—one of the most immediate and effective elements of our aid to that country. Your Lordships may already have seen reports that these aircraft have arrived and set to work. Indeed, as my noble friend has already pointed out, the RAF got its aircraft on the spot before those of any other air force.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? When he says, "got its aircraft on the spot", does he mean into the rebel areas of Eritrea where the famine is, or just to Ethiopia?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we got our aircraft into Ethiopia delivering grain, and were the first of any air force to do that. Our Hercules aircraft are now operating from their base at Addis Ababa, picking up grain at Assab on the Red Sea coast and delivering it to the crucial airstrips at Mekele, Axum and elsewhere. In this way they are moving up to 90 tonnes a day into the areas where it is most needed, so making a welcome and significant contribution towards easing the dreadful suffering in Ethiopia.
For the Navy, the assistance which we were recently able to give to the Egyptians in clearing mines in the important shipping lanes of the Gulf of Suez provided an excellent demonstration of the Royal Navy's flexibility to operate far from their home bases, as well as valuable training in an area of warfare of considerable importance to the defence of the United Kingdom itself. The first of the mine counter measure vessels returned to Portsmouth yesterday, having conducted a thorough search of the area allocated to them, and their success in recovering the only mine of recent origin to have been found confirms once again their high level of professionalism.
I have spoken about the military capability that we face from the Soviet Union, and Exercise "Lionheart" earlier this year proved a most effective demonstration of our ability to reinforce the Central Region rapidly and effectively. It underlined our political and military commitment to forward defence which is crucial in terms of alliance cohesion. Some of your Lordships observed various stages of the exercise and will have seen at first hand the skill and morale of our soldiers, both regular and reservist, and the quality of the new equipment now coming into service.
This exercise was a massive undertaking involving well over 120,000 troops, including almost 50,000 United Kingdom regular and reserve troops who travelled with their equipment from the United Kingdom to the Continent, by sea and by air, to take up their deployment stations in BAOR. I should like to convey my apologies to the contractor at one of the ports we used, who found his bulldozer shipped to West Germany with the other reinforcements. These reinforcements included almost 30,000 Territorial Army soldiers and, for the first time on an exercise, 3,300 individual reservists. Throughout the exercise these members of our reserve forces demonstrated by their competence and enthusiasm the invaluable contribution they make to our armed forces, and I should like to pay tribute to all those who took part. I should also like to express my thanks to those
132
employers who allowed their employees time off work to take part. It is not easy to spare employees, and it was heartening to note that employers recognised the importance of the reserve forces to the defence effort.
I have referred to the part played by army reservists in the success of Lionheart, but we must not forget the role of the smaller, but no less effective, air force and naval reserves. This year the Royal Auxiliary Air Force celebrates its 60th anniversary. During recent years it has expanded considerably, and recruitment and retention rates are high. The six auxiliary field squadrons, which were formed to provide much needed local station defence, are proving a most effective force. Additionally, your Lordships will recall that we previously announced the formation of an auxiliary movements squadron, and also an auxiliary aeromedical evacuation squadron. I am pleased to say that members of both these units played an important role in the recent Exercise Lionheart.
In this year's Statement on the Defence Estimates we announced that consideration was being given to further expansion over the rest of the decade. In this connection we are hoping to use auxiliaries to operate the captured Argentinian Skyguard anti-aircraft system. The delivery of new gliders to the Air Training Corps has started, and all 100 will be delivered by July next year. This is very important for the RAF as some 30 per cent. of regular RAF recruits are ex-members of the Air Training Corps. Incidentally, I believe that I am the first Minister to have flown into service with the RAF a new aircraft; namely, that glider—the first, anyway, since my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye.
Last year we announced an increase of a third in the planned strength of the Royal Marines Reserve and I am glad to say that recruiting is going well for this build-up. Less well known, perhaps, is the crucial role played by the Royal Naval Reserve, to which I particularly wish to draw the attention of your Lordships tonight. The Royal Navy relies extensively on their support in two vital areas. On mobilisation, one-third of those in command and control posts in shore headquarters will be reservists, and similarly the RNR will man one-third of the mine warfare forces.
I have already talked about Operation Harling, whose necessity showed the disruptive effect a relatively small number of mines can have, even in peacetime. In time of war the mine is one of the gravest threats to both the Royal and Merchant Navies, and, indeed, to the maritime forces of our NATO allies. It is vital that the approaches to our ports and anchorages and reinforcement routes to Europe remain open. Today, the Soviet Union has a huge arsenal of modern sophisticated mines capable of being laid not only inshore but also in deeper water further afield.
To counter this deeper water threat a new class of fleet minesweeper has been developed, and the Royal Naval Reserve will become the specialists in its operation. Our programme to re-equip all 11 Royal Naval Reserve divisions with these new minesweepers is on target, with two already delivered and the remainder due to be accepted into service within the next 16 months. I was very pleased to be present recently at the commissioning ceremony of the first of

133
these new vessels, HMS "Carron", and I am hoping to have an early opportunity to see at first hand what they can do. It is worth noting that this is the first time that the Royal Naval Reserve have operated a new class before the Royal Navy, which illustrates our confidence in their proven mine counter-measures ability.
I have sought to emphasise the importance of minesweeping, but of course the Royal Naval Reserve's contribution does not end there. In view of the importance of the reserves to our planning, we have recently carried out an examination of all their tasks in war, and I am very pleased to be able to announce tonight that we intend to increase the strength of the Royal Naval Reserve from the present 5,400 to 7,800 over the next few years—an increase of well over 40 per cent. The communications branch will be significantly larger, and we are carrying out a trial of an RNR diving branch for port defence which, if successful, will be extended.
We shall be building up an RNR relations branch; and we are also working on substantial enhancements in the RNR medical branch, in the air branch and in those employed on interrogation and intelligence work. This is a good start, but I am very keen indeed to build up the role of this versatile force still further. Looking to the future, when RNR numbers reach the new target and the requirements of the vital minesweeping role are met, the way will be open to take on other tasks. I hope the members of the Royal Naval and Royal Marines Reserves who give so selflessly of their spare time will recognise the enhancements I have announced tonight as a token of the confidence the Government and the regular armed forces repose in them.
May I turn to some of the points which have been raised during the course of the debate? I shall deal with as many of them as I can. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raised during his remarks the question of the Strategic Defence Initiative. Of course we are anxious to help prevent an arms race in space. The SDI has far-reaching implications and is being carefully studied. It is important to stress—as I did when the noble Lord and I had an exchange on this matter during Question Time a few days ago—that the US programme is a long-term one and is limited to research. So I think we should beware of reacting too hastily.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked about the position of Gibraltar. Exchanges with the Spanish Government at a technical level have been taking place for some time. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will meet the Spanish Foreign Minister again soon and we are working towards early implementation of the Lisbon statement. It would not be right to give further details now while talks are thus continuing.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and at least one other noble Lord raised the question of no first use of force. NATO Ministers have said that the alliance will never use any of its weapons except in response to an attack. In our view, no further declaration or treaty could be a substitute for the patient pursuit of specific arms control agreements. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me also about Cyprus. The proximity
134
talks are of course confidential between the parties to them—the noble Lord referred to them in his remarks—and the UN Secretary-General. But I can assure him that we shall continue to give the Secretary-General every support for his initiative. The noble Lord asked me about Iran and Iraq, and particularly about the safety of British tankers and about arms sales to Iran. On tankers, we have stressed to both sides the importance of freedom of navigation in the Gulf and have protested strongly following attacks on British ships. On arms sales, I can only say again that we supply no lethal equipment to either side.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me also about Namibia. The main hope lies in current US diplomatic efforts and in the direct contacts between the parties immediately involved. We have made clear to the South Africans our commitment to early implementation of Security Council Resolution 435.
The noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn, Lord Kennet and Lord Hatch, raised the question of Nicaragua. One or two of my noble friends referred to this matter too. We welcomed the decision to hold elections—but, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, himself noted, there was room for serious doubt about whether the campaign conditions were fair. Opposition leaders were harassed, there was continuing censorship, and the Sandinista Party had institutional advantages. These factors should be borne in mind as we interpret the results.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but may I make one point clear? In my opinion, the degree of fairness of the Nicaraguan elections was quite remarkable, given the historical disadvantages under which they started. The burden of my remarks was that it was a remarkably good achievement and my criticisms should not be taken as the main part of what I said.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am happy to note the noble Lord's views on that matter but I can assure him that we reached our own independent decision on whether to send observers to the elections—contrary to the views which I believe have been expressed in some elements of the press in America.
My noble friend Lord Thomas asked about the possibility of an annual White Paper on foreign affairs as there is on defence. We are grateful to him for that suggestion but one difficulty is that international affairs move very fast. Therefore, there is much to be said in favour of our present practice of making up-to-date statements on specific issues. Parliament is kept fully informed about foreign policy and asssociated expenditure. In addition to debates such as this, material is given to the Select Committee on foreign affairs, and foreign policy documents and background briefs are published regularly. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office also contributes to the annual White Paper on public expenditure. Therefore, I am not sure that it would be right in present circumstances to divert scarce resources to the task of producing an additional White Paper on foreign affairs.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to the Irish question. On the question of Anglo-Irish co-operation, Her Majesty's Government and the Government of

135
the Republic have close relations and co-operate on a wide range of issues—including security against the common terrorist threat. Her Majesty's Government found many aspects of the New Ireland Forum report positive and welcomed in particular recognition of the need for consent in Northern Ireland for any changes in sovereignty. Other aspects were more disappointing; for example, that the report did not confront the implications for policy if the Northern Ireland majority continued to withhold consent to Irish unity.
On the question of the Kilbrandon report—and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, participated in the preparation of that document—we have noted with interest the publication of the report of that independent inquiry. The Government will certainly give careful consideration to the report's analysis and ideas as we continue our discussions with the political parties in Northern Ireland and as we continue the regular contacts we have with the Irish Republic.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, asked about our general attitude to disarmament matters. I can only say again that we are deeply committed to the search for disarmament, but it must be brought about in a way which preserves international security. That means seeking agreements which preserve the balance and which can be verified. We believe that anything less would undermine, not strengthen, the prospects for peace. As for the British contribution to disarmament negotiations, we are closely associated, through NATO, with American attempts to reduce strategic and intermediate range missiles. We have participated in the Vienna talks on balanced conventional force reductions, and we intend to play a full part in the conference on disarmament in Europe. We are active in the conference on disarmament in Geneva, particularly in the negotiations to ban chemical weapons.
On that topic, which the noble Lord, Lord Boston, raised, I can say that the United Kingdom has had no chemical weapons for very many years and that this policy is unchanged. United States chemical weapons policy is of course a matter for that Government, but in fact no United States weapons have been produced since 1969 and I understand that Congress has not so far authorised funds to modernise the ageing and limited United States retaliatory capability.
On the question of follow-on forces attack—another point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Boston—that was something which I think emerged from the defence planning committee. The proceedings of that body are, by their nature, normally confidential but communiqués are issued after meetings. I think my right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces made a statement in another place on that matter a short while ago and I shall send the noble Lord a copy of that statement.
The noble Lord also had considerable fun talking about the recent White Paper about the re-organisation of the Ministry of Defence. As that paper indicated, there will be significant savings in top posts—I refer in particular to paragraph 16 of that document—and further savings will follow at the lower levels. It is too early to put a figure on the cost
136
savings but we are confident that the changes to be introduced at the start of 1985 will make for greater efficiency throughout the defence organisation. I have been concerned with some of the changes envisaged by that document, particularly with the medical structure of the Ministry of Defence, and I can assure the noble Lord that the changes we have made will be effective. Indeed, we have altered what we originally proposed in some respects to meet the anxieties expressed to us.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, who I see is still in his place, attacked almost every aspect of our policy. But I wonder whether he agrees that in fact both of us in the end have the same objective: to ensure that war does not take place. The difference of course is how we propose to achieve that.
The noble Lord Lord Oram, asked about the Government's aid policy. He is a great expert in that matter and I fear that nothing I can say will convince him; but I can confirm that it is still the Government's intention to attain the 0·7 per cent. of GNP target for overseas aid. However, like previous governments, we are not committed to a date for achieving it. The noble Lord castigated us for not setting a date; but the Administration of which he was a member did not set a date either, so I do not think that we need take any lessons from them on that. Our recent performance in aid matters has been very close to the OECD donor average. Of the major donors we are below France and Germany but ahead of the United States, Japan and Italy.
I must say that I was puzzled by some aspects of the speech of my noble friend Lord Ailsa, particularly about the history of Soviet influence in Ethiopia. I am not sure that I would agree with what he said about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, referred to what I think he would regard as British Government intransigence in our attitude to the Argentine and the Falklands matter. But we have taken several initiatives to achieve more normal bilateral relations with the Argentine, and we remain ready to do this. We had hoped for a more favourable response from President Alfonsin. The Prime Minister herself welcomed the return of democratic rule to the Argentine in December 1983; but President Alfonsin has recently restated the linkage between normalisation and sovereignty which brought the Berne talks to a premature end. We are not prepared to discuss sovereignty, and we look to our friends not to encourage the Argentine to pursue unrealistic objectives. I hope that my noble friend Lord Onslow will reflect on what he said about that matter during the course of his remarks.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, what do the Government think about my suggestion that we should discuss the political future—not sovereignty?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not give him a detailed critique of the proposals that he has put to me. The important thing about the situation here is, of course, the views and the position of the people of the Falkland Islands.

137
My noble friend Lord Onslow asked me specifically about the Stanley airport road. We are, of course, aware of the current state of the road leading from Stanley to the existing airport. There are many views as to why it has deteriorated so rapidly following its resurfacing barely seven months ago. Deficiencies in the original construction have been suggested as one factor. Other causes include a heavier than anticipated traffic load regularly using the road, and the lack of routine maintenance since the road was completed. The Royal Engineers are doing what they can to carry out emergency repairs and to keep the road open, but these efforts are only an interim solution, and ways of finding an adequate long-term solution are being actively considered.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Royal Engineers say that they can repair that road up to decent levels within three and a half months? That is the received view of the commanding officer of the Royal Engineer regiment in the Falkland Islands at the moment.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for news hot off the press from the Falkland Islands. But, of course, it is not just a question of finding the men; we have to find the money and the equipment as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, asked me, too, about press speculation—which he was fuelling, I think—about possible cuts in Foreign Office expenditure. I am afraid that I cannot make any comments on the outcome of the annual public expenditure survey in advance of the Autumn Statement of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe that the Statement is usually made at some stage in November.
My noble friend Lord Beloff asked me about the continued United Kingdom membership of UNESCO. I am not sure that he asked me; I think he told me what he thought it ought to be. This is an important question to which the Government are currently giving attention. My right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development wrote to UNESCO's director general in April setting out the reforms that we felt were necessary for UNESCO. He recognised that time would be needed to achieve all these reforms, but he said that by this autumn we would wish to see significant indications of change and would review our position before the end of the year. Since then a number of relevant decisions have been taken both by the director general and the executive board, who are now assessing the progress that has been made.
The defence of this island and our remaining dependencies is, I believe, a duty binding upon every Government, regardless of their political persuasion. It is not subject to elections, manifestoes or mandates. I believe that this Administration have discharged that duty to the full. We are content to be judged by our record, and we seek your Lordships' support accordingly.
Lord Molloy: Before the noble Lord sits down, my Lords, I wonder whether he will answer one point that I raised. Is it the Government's policy that in certain circumstances, if they felt it necessary, they would not hesitate to initiate an exchange of nuclear weapons?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have to say that there are certain circumstances when that would be possible.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, may I ask the Minister one question before he sits down? May I ask him whether he is prepared to reply to my inquiry about the desirability of a freeze on the production of nuclear weapons and also the desirability of mutual withdrawal of battlefield weapons from the centre of Europe?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the problem with a freeze is that it freezes the present imbalance, and I cannot think that that would contribute to a stable situation.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Elton, that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eleven o'clock.

  "BRITAIN": NOMENCLATURE
  "BRITAIN": NOMENCLATURE
  EL SALVADOR: UK POLICY
  EL SALVADOR: UK POLICY